


iMmaaBamSiammmmm 









r- r« '- ' ■ /^ 'A A ■ 









VAAA 






'^^«»:'!:^^^^/s;K( 



^^A/c^/^A^/^/^Af 



Dims 



..-^^^p^^ 






^0^'^-/^ 



^^....s*:f^«if'^»^^ 






n'^'%.'%.'%.<^ 



J'^S^^.'' 



*LIBRARY OF CONGRESS J 

^ ' - - # 

I UNITED STATES OP AMEHICA. f^ 









A A A C ',' W A 



A A ^ .0 0'. Ai'^' A';/A)/^ A- >. ;' 



A'^,^^.<^<^A<^^'^A^,^* 



■A'AAA^A,^_^Ay^^A:v:^AC 












#^/^ftftftAA^? 



/Pi/^^^^^/^^O/^/^^.^r;^ 



*\ /^ r* A •?! ';:;^ /^ "^ /^ -^l ^ '^ *■ '^- C ■*: 



A,«,#i ^AA'"' 



'^**^:;A^'^AApffion?^^??^*;^^?^ 






, ■ ..^'•^^Sf^S^^A^^" "?5?«p;'"^--^^'.-=i. .^^^.^^^ax^;,?^:;;-- ' -^ 



^A... A :«.. 



f'^Kk 



tm^PmrP'f-' ' :• :"" "^^ 



f^kS^m 



1&&:: ~' 



,*W^^i^*»**^i';^*A''*s>' 






:,.,^ymm 



'^^.^r-'^^^R^K^' 



AA^^K. 



'r^Kr^mi 



^^A^^^^^^^^A^;^^^ 



^..^^A 



^i/^f'^^^^^f^^@#^r^^l?^C^^(?^^^^/ 



.^^A^^Or^^^"^ 



^AA/^''^,'^/^''A-I^^cc^^^^'^^r^-^-'^ 






•^/^A^W: 



ii^tb.:-^'^.: 






vv/v^«^ww;,;;;-»..,,,i.vsgfgi 












>^,^^ :^^/^ 









MS-OTTLni 



.^ '^. U >' -^ A '"^ ■^' ' ^ '-■ -^ 






^^^I^SM^Uu^^^uM 



«?^??«Sc»:SAiSS:E: 



SI^PPTaOai 






^'''"'•^^/5^/^^/^,^, 






^^WAAAijiiA-o"^W^-^^;^CC^(^"?^^%7 



>^^AAi«A),^i^'^^'^^A'i/^'^''^i^^'^^ 






Aa.a^^^aa 



A,^-A/^^-j^ 



mmm^ 



wmimtm. 



^'^^f'^^t^Ah, 









^..: Jfe«^^?^C^O: ^ 



X^'^.C^i^iK,^'^ 



^ '^ « C. *".- A -i ' 



G L E A ]S 1 N G S 



rnoM TiiK 



|(irtei4el^ ai gimerian fistora. 



HENRY B. DAWSON. 



PART VI. 



'l PRAT YOU I.CT MK OLEA\ AND GATUEU AFTER THE REAPERS, AJIOXG THE ."-UKAVICS. 



MORRISANIA, N. T. : 
PRINTED, AS MANUSCRIPT, FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION'. 
1860. 



MAJOR-GENERAL ISRAEL PUTNAM. 



% Comspoukncc, on \\p Subject 



WITH THK 



EDITOR OF "THE HARTFORD DAILY POST," 



!Y "SELAU," or THAT CITY, C^^- ^ • G; ti'sw o M ^ 



HENEY B. DAWSON, OF WHITE PLAINS, N. Y. 



MORRISANIA: 

18G0. 



A-" 



.i.*^ 



GEORGE HENRY MOORE, ESQ., 

LIBRARIAN OF THE NEW YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY, 
AND 

Sutfjor of "C^? Ettzean of iHafartfff nfral CfjstUjs Eff," 

ONK OF THE FKW WHOSK VENKRATION FOR "ESTABLISHKD RECUTATlON'b" DOES NdT 
OVERCOME HIS FIDELITY AS A HISTORIAN, 

AS A M E :M E N T O OF RESPECT 

FOR HIS OWN ICONOCLASTIC LABORS, 

AND OF 

REGARD FOR IIIAI, AS AN EARLY AND CONSTANT FRIEND, 

V>Y THE EDITOU. 

Mop.KiSA.MA, N. Y., ^I'tcmher 1, l^oO. 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 



During the past year, while engaged in the preparation of that portion 
of " The Battles of the United States" which relates, particularly, to the War 
of the Eevolution, my attention was, necessarily, drawn to General Israel 
PtTTNAM, of Connecticut, and to the part which he performed in ihat pro- 
tracted struggle. On Noddle's Island, on Bunker's Hill, on the heights 
of Gowanus, and in the Highlands of the Hudson, it had been said, this 
officer had displayed great courage and extraordinary abilities; and these 
reports, added to the stories of his attack on the she-wolf, of his exploits 
la the old French War, of his courage in sitting on a barrel of onion-seed, 
of his ride down the bank at Horse-Neck, and of other feats, equally 
wonderful and no less fabulous, had made his name a " household word," 
which was synonymous with desperate courage, undeviating patriotism, 
and unquestioned integrity. An examination of the cotemporary docu- 
ments, however, soon dispelled^ any illusion under A^hich I may nave 
labored before that time; and I satisfied myself that, if an example was 
required for the imitation of my countrymen, cither in courage, integrity, 
or patriotism, tlie very last who could be taken from among the officers of 
the Revolutionary Armies, for that purpose, would be General Israel 
Putnam. 

iln my examination of the affairs on Noddle's Island and on Breed's 
Hill, I said but little on the subject ; out in my account of " The Battle 
OF LoxG Island" (" Battles of the United States," Book I, Chap, xi, Vol. I, 
pp. 143-150), I devoted more space to this subject, from the fact that, in 
that case, General Putnam was, actually, the responsible commander. After 
describing, as fully as I was capable, the several movements in that series 
of disasters, I closed the narrative with these words: 

" The loss of the field, on Long Island, produced serious results in the 
American army. Nearly twelve hundred of the flower of the army were 
lost, a thousand of them being prisoners, among whom were Generals Sulli- 
van and Lord Stirling. This defeat also discouraged the inexperienced 
troops under General Washington, and crowds of them left the army. 



10 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

spreading tales of terror wherever they went throughout the country, 
and working mischief, of the severest character, where its effect was most 
disastrous to the cause of America. 

' ' There has heen much comment on this battle, both respecting the 
action itself and those on whom the responsibility of the loss should fall. 
It has been well said, by one whose means of judging were unusually 
fine, that ' Tlie strange oversight in leaving the Jamaica Eoad unguarded, 
and the neglect in procuring early and constant intelligence of the move- 
ments of the British army, were the immediate causes of the deplorable 
events of the day.' That there should be any doubt respecting the 
proper person to Avhom the loss of the battle of Long Island should be 
attributed, with these undisputed facts in view, is a matter of surprise to 
me. It is unquestionably the duty of the commander of a district to 
provide, not only the means of securing intelligence of every movement of 
his enemy, but for the protection of his position ; and, especially when 
any peculiar pass, or hill, or bridge, between him and the enemy, would 
secure advantages to that enemy, which would be dangerous to him, it is 
the unquestionable duty of the commander to occupy such position in 
force ; or, in case he neglects it, the disgrace is his, and the responsibility 
for any evil effects -arising from such neglect of duty devolves upon hm. 
In fact, the commander is a sentinel whom the commander-in-chief or the 
government has placed to guard the interests of the people; and, like any 
other sentinel, he cannot sleep on his post without committing one of the 
highest crimes known to the military law. 

"With these axioms before us, let us examine, as far as the evidence 
goes, who commanded, and who slept on his post. It is said that General 
Gbeene commanded on Long Island, that the defenses were thrown up 
under his direction, and that he was taken sick with a fever and left the 
island. It is said ^that General Sullivan then assumed the command ; 
that, notwithstanding the enemy was still on Staten Island, he employed 
moimted patrols, at an expense of fifty dollars per night, to mount guard 
on roads which he saw the enemy might use in approaching New York ; 
and that, on the twenty-third of August — the day after the enemy's army 
landed on Long Island — he was superseded by General Putnam. It is said, 
and has never been contradicted, that General Washington gave General 
Putnam positive instructions to guard the passes through the hills leading 
to Brooklyn ; it is said, also without contradiction, that General Sullivan, 
his predecessor and second in command, enforced the same measures on 
his attention ; it is known, that, although the enemy, in full force, was 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 11 

encamped within four or five miles, opposite two of those very passes, 
General Putnam never reconnoitered that enemy's position- — in fact, that 
he never left Brooklyn ; and it is equally well known that, although the 
enemy was then encamped at Flatbush, the mounted patrols which 
General Sullivan had established, as well as the guards at some of the 
passes established by General Greene, were withdrawn, leaving the 
country clear for the enemy's secret movements, and the passes conve- 
niently unguarded for his especial accommodation. It is also a well- 
established fact, that no general officer was outside the lines at Brooklyn, 
on the night of the twenty-sixth, until the advance of General Grant was 
made known to General Putnam, at three o'clock, when Generals Sullivan 
and Lord Stirling Avere dispatched to Flatbush and the Bay Road, to 
oppose the movements in those quarters. 

' ' From these facts, it appears conclusively that General Putnam paid no 
attention to the orders of General Washington, respecting the security of 
the passes; and that the advice of General Sullivan, on the same subject, 
was also disregarded, his patrols withdrawn, and the command outside 
the lines, where his knowledge of the ground rendered him peculiarly 
useful, taken from him and given to another ; that, with an enemy 
encamped iu full force within a few miles of his position, he quietly 
remained at Brooklyn without reconnoitering that enemy's position, or 
sending out a scout ; that he withdrew guards and failed to remount 
them, where they were essential to the safety of his position ; and, 
finally, that to his ignorant, self-conceited inefficiency, the enemy is 
indebted for one of the greatest victories of the war, and his country for 
one of the most disastrous defeats, both military and moral, which it ever 
experienced. 

' ' Yet, in the words of a modern writer, ' Not in vain was even the 
defeat of Brooklyn ; not in vain, the anguish with which the usually calm 
spii'it of Washington was that day torn. Not in vain were those two 
anxious days and nights which he passed on horseback, and which saved 
from death or captivity nine thousand men. These, and more, were all 
needed. In the immortal letters and dispatches of the great commander, 
and in the painful annals of the time, we read the cost and the value of 
what we are now enjoying. Without these we had not fully known how 
inherent, how enduring and elastic, is the power of an earnest and 
virtuous patriotism. Without them, even the transcendent name of 
Washington could not have filled the mighty measure of his fame.' " 

In accordance with the plan of the work, I appended to this chapter the 



12 INTRODUCTORY REEARKS. 

official reports of the several commanding officers and a short biographical 
slietch of General Putnam's life, the latter of which, from its connexion 
with the subject matter of tliis volume, I copj'. It is embraced in these 
words : 

"Israel Putnam was born at Salem, Massachusetts, on the seventh 
of January, 1718. Delighting more in the cultivation of those physical 
qualities which enabled him to surpass in feats of strength and agility, his 
mind was never cultivated, and he enterec" manhood without that solid 
practical information which, even at that early day, was withm the reach 
of every New Englander. At the age of twenty-one he removed to 
Pomfret, Connecticut, where he engaged in the cultivation of a consider- 
able tract of ground, which he had purchased. It was at this place that 
the tremendous "she-wolf," of which the world has heard so much, 
killed, it is said, in one night, seventy-five aheep and goats of his flock, 
besides wounding many of his lambs and kids ; and there also is the 
wonderful cave where this terrible beast found refuge, and in which Mr. 
Putnam so gallantly confronted and killed her. 

" When the French war broke out, he took the command of a company 
in Colonel Lyman's regiment of provincials ; and, with it, joined the army 
near Crown Point. In the following year he rejoined the army, and it 
was ir this campaign, while out on a scout near Ticonderoga, that the 
miraculous escape, so much spoken of and so well known, occurred : the 
folded blanket which he carried on his back, when opened, showing no less 
than fourteen bullet holes through it. In this campaign he appears also 
to have been taken prisoner by the Indians and carried to Montreal, from 
which he was exchanged through the assistance of Colonel Scuutlee. 

' ' After the peace he returned to his farm, where he remained until the 
troublesome times at Lexington and Concord aroused the country, and all 
New England seized their guns for the redress of their grievances. When 
' the news from Lexington ' reached Pomfret, Colonel Putnam was 
ploughing ; and, it is said, he unyoked his team, mounted his horse, and 
hurried off to Cambridge. The General Assembly immediately afterwards 
authorized the organization of six regiments of troops, and Colonel Putnam 
(who had been appointed a Lieutenant-colonel of militia in October, 1774) 
was appointed to the command of the Third, with the title of Second 
Brigadier-general of the Provincial Troops. He speedily filled up his 
regiment, and returned at its head to Cambridge ; a detachment from it, 
under the noble Captain Knowlton, having been among the troops 
ordered to Breed's Hill under Colonel Prescoit, and whose cup of honest 



INTRODUTTORY REMARKS. 13 

renown was filled to overflowing by their undaunted bravery on the 
eventful seventeenth of June. 

" In a previous chapter, notice has been taken of the affair on Noddle's 
Island, and of the part which General Putxam did not take in it. It was 
his good fortune, however, to obtain the credit of that affair ; and, 
through the management of interested parties in Congress, whose 
opposition to the commander-in-chief was then in embryo, but not less 
virulent, this intelligence, then just received in Congress, was so used as 
to secure for him the appointment of Major-general of the Continental 
Army, in June, 1775, to the mortification of General Washingtox, and the 
disgust of the officers from Massachusetts and Connecticut. 

"At the battle of Bunker's Hill, he is said, bj' his eulogists, to have 
performed prodigies of valor. Those who were present, admit that he 
went on the ground with Colonel Prescott: and his party, on the evening 
before the battle, but they agree that he did not remain there. They say 
he returned on the following morning ; but they agree that he ordered 
the intrenching tools to be removed from the redoubt, in opposition to the 
remonstrances of Colonel Prescott, and for that purpose withdrew a large 
number of Colonel Prescott' s troops from the redoubt, at a time when the 
approach of the enemy showed that they were actually needed in the 
works. When the reinforcements under Colonel Stark came on the hill, 
they saw General Putxam and a large body of men quietly standing on the 
safe side of Bunker's Hill, beyond the range of the enemy's artillery ; and 
when the same body retreated, after the struggle at the works was ended, 
the General and his men were at the same place, and quietly joined in the 
retreat. For his ^gallantry" at Bunker's Hill, Colonel Prescott — the 
acknowledged hero of that engagement — some years afterwards, at an 
oflicial dinner with Governor Bowdoin, of Massachusetts, openly declared 
General Putnam deserved to be shot; but those who were not there, and 
whose information is generally acquired from less reliable sources, gene- 
rally suppose the venerable Colonel was mistaken in his conclusions, not- 
withstanding Colonel Gerrish, in whose company the General was, for 
this very offense (.?), was afterwards arrested for cotvardice, tried by a court- 
maiiial, cashiered, and universally execrated. 

"On the reorganization of the army, under General Washington, 
General Putnam was ordered to the ' reserve ' of the army. After the 
evacuation of Boston had relieved the colonies, for a season, of the 
presence of the enemy, General Putnam was sent forward to New York, to 
take the command there, and to continue the execution of the plan 



14 INTEODUCTORY REMARKS. 

proposed by General Lee for the defense of that city, unless the general 
voice of the brigadiers and the engineers concurred in any slight change. 

"After General Washington assumed the command in New York, 
General Putnam remained there, without command, until the siclcness of 
General Greene afforded an opportunity for the display of any abilities he 
might possess in opposing the enemy's progress towards New York. Of 
the manner in which he discharged his duty in that important position, ' 
this chapter has furnished some evidence. 

' ' After the retreat into the county of Westchester, and the battle on 
Chatterton's Hill, General Putnam was ordered to Philadelphia; and in 
January, 1777, he was ordered to Princeton, where he remained until 
spring. 

"In the spring of 1777, General Putnam was ordered to another of 
those quiet posts, where no particuliar abilities, beyond a strict obedience 
to orders, appeared to be required, — the command of the Highlands on 
the Hudson ; but here, too, misfortunes visited him. After withdrawing 
the troops under his command beyond the limits within which they could 
render any assistance to the garrisons of Forts Montgomery and Clinton, 
leaving the passes exposed, and without even a guard or a patrol — in 
direct violation of the orders of the commander-in-chief — Sir Henry 
Clinton, as he had done at Bedford, on the twenty- seventh of August) 
stole a march on the vigilant and talented Putnam, and carried off the 
prizes, which furnished the key to the Highlands. 

"In November, 1777, the situation of affairs in Pennsylvania rendered 
it necessary for General Washington to strengthen the army in that 
quarter. He accordingly dispatched Colonel Hamilton, with orders to 
General Putnam, then at New Windsor, to send forward the brigades of 
Continental troops under Generals Poor and Sullivan, and the brigade of 
militia under General Warner, to headquarters. But General Putnam 
had a desire to capture New York, and the commander-in-chief's orders 
were disregarded, until a letter, such as General Washington seldom 
wrote, brought the General to his senses. The result of this delay was 
the fall of Fort Mifflin, the evacuation of Eed Bank, the loss of the 
defenses on the Delaware, and the continued occupation of Philadelphia, 
through the succeeding winter, by General Howe. 

"In March, 1778, Congress ordered an investigation of the causes 
which led to the loss of the forts in the Highlands, and General Putnam 
was superseded in his command by General McDougal. The court of 
inquiry reported that, ' upon full knowledge and mature deliberation of 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 15 

facts, on the spot, they reported the loss to have heen occasioned by icant 
of men, and not by any fault in the comvianders.' This indirect condemna- 
tion of the conduct of General Putnam, whose force had enabled him to 
supply the requisite number of men for the defense of the forts, was more 
positively confirmed by the action of General Washington, who ordered 
General Putnam to Connecticut, to ' suijerintend tlie forwarding on of the 
new levies,' — a post of far less importance than such a soldier as General 
Putnam is said to have been would have been placed in, at that important 
period, if those who knew the man, and who were fully competent to 
judge of his merits, had agreed with the popular opinion at the 
present day. 

' ' It was during the General' s residence in Connecticut that the 
celebrated descent down the slope at Horse-Neck (now Greenwich) took 
place. It is proper to state, however, that historians, or rather eulogists, 
have done the General great injustice respecting this affair. The steep 
was not quite perpendicular, as some have supposed ; nor did his horse dash 
doM'u the hill, as picture-makers have taken for granted, but. General 
Putnam himself being the witness, ' the horse was well trained and 
sagacious, and came down the hill in a sliding manner, resting upon his 
haunches,' the General, meanwhile, being almost as comfortable as when 
in his easy-chair by his fireside. 

" General Putnam never afterwards enjoyed a separate command ; and 
in 1779 he was rendered incapable of active duty of any kind, by an 
attack of paralysis, which, to a considerable extent, deprived him of the 
use of his limbs on one side. 

' ' The remainder of his days were spent in retirement, and on the 
twenty-ninth of May, 1790, he died, aged seventy-two years." 

In the preparation of these parts of my work, as in all others, I 
consulted nobody's taste or views but my own. My name was before 
the public as the author of the work ; and, in this case, as in all others, 
the exact truth, as I understood it, was the only subject which I considered. I 
had written the pages which preceded these, with the single object of 
making a series of narratives which would stand the test of a thoroughly 
critical examination; and had known, [unjustly, neither individual, nor 
party, nor country, in their preparation. Unknown beyond the imme- 
diate neighborhood in which I have lived and done business, from my 
boyhood, I was cheered onward, in this first attempt at book-making, by 
the words of approbation which I received from every quarter of the 
Union, and by the substantial evidences of confidence and respect which 



16 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

were voluntarily tendered and forwarded to me by the most honored of 
those who have added most honor to our Historic Literature, and I had 
seen no reason — nor have I yet seen any — to change the great fundamental 
principle on which I acted. I made as thorough an examination of my 
subject as my means would admit ; and, after satisfying my own mind, 
with the same disregard of popular delusion and of professional chicanery 
which I have showed in all other parts of my work, I wrote and issued 
the lines which have been cited. I presented Israel Putnam as I found 
him, as I have endeavored to do in the case of every other officer who 
occupied posts of similar importance ; and if General Putnam does not 
occupy the same relative position in my work, which others have 
assigned to him, the fault, or the misfortune, was General Putnam's, not mine. 

The former of the two citations, involving the duties and responsi- 
bilities of a commander, soon after it appeared in print, was submitted, 
especially, to the critical examination of one of the most distinguished 
soldiers of our country, who has honored me with his friendship, and it 
met his full and unqualified approval. Sustained, as it has been, by the 
great weight of this authority, I have yet to learn that my conclusions are 
incorrect, or that in this, or in other parts of my work, I have exceeded 
my duty, as an humble laborer in the literature of our countrj'. 

About the time when the approval of my friend confirmed my own 
views on this subject, the first and only attack which has been made on my 
work, so far as I am aware, appeared, anonymously, in ' ' The Hartford 
Daily Post," a widely circulating daily, which is published at Hartford, 
Connecticut. Through the kindness of some unknown friend, a copy of 
the paper which contained it was forwarded to me ; and, in consideration 
of the personalities which the article contained, I determined to 'offer a 
reply. The respected publisher, J. M. Scofield, Esq. , readily allowed me 
a hearing ; and I attempted to avail myself of the privilege in a respectful 
and dignified manner. A short time afterwards, my anonjTnous opponent, 
in a strain of personal abuse, renewed the attack ; and a second hearing 
was asked for, obtained, and employed in reply. Without being con- 
tented with his former efforts, my opponent, after some delay, appeared a 
third time — in which he received the co-operation of "an older, if not a 
better, soldier;" and, a third time, I was subjected to the misrepresenta- 
tion and abuse of " Selah." With a degree of forbearance which entitles 
him to my grateful acknowledgments, Mr. Scofield, a third time, opened 
his columns, for my answer — appropriating upwards of a column, daily, 
for nearly two weeks, to my use— notwithstanding, with commendable 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 17 

zeal, my opponents had meanwhile secured the public co-operation of a 
gallant corps of citizen soldiery — " The Putnam Phalanx" of Hartford ; and 
that of a body not less intelligent or gallant — the General Assembly of the 
State of Connecticut. 

This series of letters having attracted the attention of ' ' the reading 
public," some of my personal friends have desired, and, unsuccessfully, 
attempted to obtain, copies of ' ' The Post ' ' which contain it ; and, at their 
request, a few copies, for circulation among those who are particularly 
interested in the subject, have been printed in this form. 

In preparing this edition of the letters for the press, I have made no 
alterations, except to correct the typographical errors which had crept 
into viy own letters. Tliose of my opponent have been printed without any 
alteration whatever, from the fact that their author has declined my request for 
corrected copies of his letters, and I did not feel authorized to make any altera- 
tions without his approval. 

Desiring that this correspondence may receive that indulgence from the 
reader which the literary labors of all busi?iess men require ; and that 
" Selah" or myself, as our respective productions may merit, will receive 
the sympathy of " the masses of the people of Connecticut," with whom 
" the honor of Connecticut " can alone be confided with safety, 
I remain, 

Eespectfully yours, 

HENRY B. DAWSON. 
MoRRiSANiA, New York, September 1, 1859. 



"SELAH'S" FIRST LETTER. 



[From the "Hartford Daily Post," Jan. 27, 1859.] 



MAJOR-GENERAL PUTNAM. 

It is with feelings of genuine pleasure that we are made 
aware that there is yet a little of patriotism left in this 
State of honorable Revolutionary history, and that the 
spirit of justice and right has not quite all died out — as 
evinced by so glowing an address as was delivered, a few 
evenings since, by the Hon. Henry C. Deming, on the life 
and services of that worthy old hero— Major General 
Israel Putnam. 

We say that it is pleasant to thus witness a man of Mr. 
Deming's learning and position, coming out from the ranks 
of lukewarm lovers of heroism, and doing such gallant 
battle for so worthy an object — not so much for the matter 
of bandying words upon the subject, as to refute some of 
the miserably untrue statements that have been put for- 
ward by many of the would-be historians of the day, and 
hurl back in their teeth some of the myriad falsehoods and 
unkind sarcasms which have flowed so freely from their 
perjured pens. 

To our utter astonishment and sincere grief it was, that 
we came upon some remarks upon the services of General 
Putnam during the Revolution, in a new work, entitled 



20 selah's first letter. 

" Battles of the United States by Sea and Land," by 
Henry B. Dawsox, that bear such unmistakable evidence 
of prejudice, rancor and malice, that are penned in such a 
cutting, sarcastic manner, and that have their paragraphs 
so thickly interspersed with italics, for the purpose of 
giving their envenomed dart a doubly poisoned point, that 
we cannot forbear giving a few extracts, for the purpose of 
allowing the public to see to what extent one man may 
disgrace himself in attempting to cast a stigma upon a 
character so shining and lustrous as was that of General 
Putnam. 

The following extracts are verhatim from the work 
itself, bearing the italics as there found. 

In speaking of the battle of Brooklyn Heights, Mr. 
Dawson, after charging upon General Putnam repeated 
and unpardonable blunders, and alleging that he disre- 
garded all the orders given him from both General 
Washington and General Sullivan, in reference to the 
security of the various passes and approaches to the 
Heights, as also the posting of guards and patrols, and the 
sending out of scouting parties to reconnoitre the enemy's 
positions-winds up his tirade in the following words: 

" And, finally, that to his ignorant, self-conceited ineffi- 
ciency the enemy is indebted for one of the greatest 
victories of the war, and his country for one of the most 
disastrous defeats, both military and moral, which it ever 
experienced." 

Is the above true ? We sincerely believe it has no 
foundation in truth, and base our belief on sound and 
undeniable historical facts, too numerous to mention in 
our brief space. 

Passing over many such paragraphs as the one we have 



selah's first letter. 21 

copied above, occurring in various places, in reference to 
General Putnam in the several actions in which he was 
engaged, we proceed to make some extracts from a brief 
memoir of the General, in the same work. At the outset — 

" Israel Putnam was born at Salem, Massachusetts, 

on the seventh day of January, 1718 At the 

age of twenty-one, he removed to Pomfret, Connecticut, 
where he engaged in the cultivation of a considerable 
tract of ground, which he had purchased." 

Now, is it possible that General Putnam was twenty- 
one years of age when he removed to Pomfret, and yet 
none know of the occurrence ? The oldest inhabitants of 
Pomfret, and all of the town records, go to prove that he 
was horn in that town. Again: 

" It was at this place [Pomfret] that the tremendous 
' she-wolf,' of which the world has heard so much, killed, 
it is said, in one night, seventy-five sheep and goats of his 
flock, besides wounding many of his lambs and kids; and 
there, also, is the wonderful cave where this terrible beast 
found refuge, and in which Mr. Putnam so gallantly con- 
fronted and killed her." 

We give the above extract, to show the vein of sarcasm 
and prejudice that pervades the whole article. As still 
another example of this humor, we have the following, in 
speaking of him after he had joined the army in the old 
French War : 

" It was in this campaign, while out on a scout near 
Ticonderoga, that the miraculous escape, so much spoken 
of, and so well known, occurred. The folded blanket 
which he carried on his back, ivJien opened, showed no less 
than fourteen bullet holes through it." 

It is certainly wonderful what a grim satisfaction Mr. 



22 sblah's first letter. 

Dawson appears to take in pulling down all of our fair 
castles in the air, and dispelling those bright visions of a 
brave and gallant warrior in the form of " Old Put." 
And now read his words in reference to the battle of 
Bunker's Hill: 

" At the battle of Bunker's Hill, he is said, by his 
eulogists, to have performed prodigies of valor. Those 
who were present, admit that he went on the ground with 
Colonel Prescott and his party, on the evening before the 
battle, but they agree that he did not remain there. They 
say he returned on the following morning; but they agree 
that he ordered the intrenching tools to be removed from 
the redoubt, in opposition to the remonstrances of Colonel 
Prescott, and for that purpose withdrew a large number 
of Colonel Prescott's troops from the redoubt, at a time 
when the approach of the enemy showed that they were 
actually needed in the works. When the re-enforcements 
under Colonel Stark came on the hill, they saw General 
Putnam and a large body of men quietly standing on the 
safe side of Bunker's Hill, beyond the range of the enemy's 
artillery; and, when the same body retreated, after the 
struggle at the works was ended, the General and his men 
were at the same place, and quietly joined in the retreat." 

Here, then, we have the matter in a nut-shell. With 
any person at all conversant with the character and 
disposition of General Putnam, the above extract will 
unhesitatingly be pronounced a falsehood ! But, oh ! Sons 
of Connecticut ! does it not make the blood in your veins 
tingle and grow hot to thus have this Mr. Dawson publish 
to the world that a body of Connecticut men, led by a 
man whom you have all learned to look up to as a hero — 
that they were inactive, and " quietly standing on the safe 



SELAHS FIRST LETTER. 23 

side of Bunker's Hill," on that ever-memorable day! It 
has always been a favorite belief in our mind that all the 
American troops on Bunker's Hill were in warm action, 
and that there were no drones or idlers in the ranks on 
that day. Must this theory be entirely evaporated by Mr. 
Dawson? We shall need the proofs first: and those he 
cannot bring ! 

One more, and the last. Not the last for want of 
material — for this work teems with such unjust remarks — 
but the last, for want of room, in which to enlarge more 
freely : 

" For his ' gallantry ' at Bunker's Hill, Colonel Pres- 
COTT — the acknowledged hero of that engagement — some 
years afterward, at an official dinner with Governor 
BowDOiN, of Massachusetts, openly declared General Put- 
nam deserved to be shot ! But those who were not there, 
and whose information is generally acquired from less 
reliable sources, generally suppose the venerable Colonel 
was mistaken in his conclusions [cool], notwithstanding 
Colonel Gerrish, in whose company the General was, and 
whose orders the Colonel was bound to obey, for this very 
offense, was afterwards arrested for coivardice, tried by a 
court-martial, cashiered, and universally execrated ^ 

This is all most pitiable ! Were there even a shadow 
of a doubt that General Putnam did not perform those 
brave and gallant deeds — that he did not, as the battle 
alarum came on the winds from the field of Lexington, 
leave the plow in the furrow, and hasten to the scene of 
strife, to mingle in the fray — that his heart did not warm 
and thrill with those generous impulses, and his spirit 
burn with an intense and unconquerable desire to serve 
his country, and do battle in an oppressed country's cause; 



2-1 selah's first letter. 

in short, that he performed none of those brave and gallant 
actions, and was in no respect the hero that we have all 
loved to picture him — revolving incidents in his history, 
in our minds, with an undying admiration — looking at the 
relics that have been left to us, with a reverential awe, for 
their associations with him — speaking his name to our 
children, and teaching them to look up to him for a noble 
example of native bravery and courage, warm and patriotic 
attachment to a bleeding country's cause, indefatigable 
exertions in his command, and a spirit ever undaunted 
during the heaviest trials and under the most oppressive 
burdens of care and toil — we say, if there were a shadow 
of doubt that such was the case, and such the man, we 
would give that doubt its due weight and force. 

But there cannot be found anywhere, save in the garbled 
works of some prejudiced historians, or in the words and 
letters of those contemporary officers with Putnam, who 
felt a rancorous and venomous hate for him, because of his 
glowing actions — actions so unlike their own, in their 
undoubted justice, and gallantry, and zeal — there cannot 
be found, we say, the first line, or paragraph, or the first 
historical fact, to prove that General Putnam was that 
" ignorant, self-conceited " and " cowardly " man which 
Mr. Dawson labors so hard to represent him. 

Three-quarters of a century has rolled away, with all its 
various mutations and changes, its unrolling of records, 
and its decyphering of them, and its never-ceasing search 
into Revolutionary chronicles; yet nothing has been 
brought to light to detract one jot or tittle from General 
Putnam's well-earned glory — nor pluck one leaf from the 
laurel-wreath which encircles his brow, in our minds — or 
even to raise a just doubt of the validity of his claim to 



selah's first letter. 25 

those words of praise, and those feelings of respect and 
admiration which all trne Americans so well love to 
accord him. 

On the other hand, many and many are the incidents- 
little as distinct and separate, but a Colossus as a whole— 
that have been dragged forth from the oblivion of some 
old manuscript or library, or been related by the feeble 
and faltering tongue of age, uttering reminiscences of 
childhood's days, when General Putnam was a companion 
and playmate— to speak in thunder-tones to prove the 
legitimacy of the claim for honor and glory for him " who 
dared to lead where any dared to follow '."—whose cool 
intrepidity and dauntless bravery wrought so much toward 
giving that terrible check to British arms at Bunker's Hill — 
whose presence and word of command inspired the troops, 
at Brooklyn Heights, to deeds of utmost daring — whose 
ready tact, consummate skill, and indomitable energy, lent 
a Herculean arm to the American cause throughout the 
war— and won for himself a lofty niche in the Temple of 
Fame, where every honest heart loves to behold him— and 
whose name is engraven on the hearts of all Americans, 
and inscribed on the immortal roll of patriots, in the great 

Temple of American Liberty ! 

SELAH. 



HENIIY I^. DAWSON'S FIRST LETTEH. 



[Fkom tiik '■H.\ritord Daily Post," Fkh. 14, 1S59.] 



White Plains, N. Y., Feb. 5, 1859. 

To the Editor of the Hartford Post : 

Through the kindness of a friend in New York, I have 
been favored with a copy of your daily of the 27th ult., in 
which an anonymous writer, " Seluh,'^ uses my name, 
motives, and labors with considerable spirit and freedom. 

Having had no doubt that your correspondent feels 
easier since your publication of his article, I would not 
have disturbed his quiet or encroached on your space or 
the time of your readers, had not his remarks found a 
place in the paper which " has the largest circulation of 
any daily paper in Connecticut," while they lack the most 
essential element in such an article — the unalloyed Truth. 

The remarks in which he has been pleased to attack me 
personally ; the general remarks of " prejudice, rancor and 
malice," " envenomed darts, " with " doubly-poisoned 
points," " tirade," " no foundation in truth," " falsehood," 
&c., with which he bespatters my motives and my pages ; 
and the empty declamation, without a single authority, 
with which he fills nearly two columns of the Post, have 
passed away with the winds which pass down tl:e valley of 
the Connecticut, and I shall not disturb their flight toward 



28 Dawson's first letter. 

the ocean of oblivion. I may be pardoned, however, if I 
ask space to notice his specific charges, through the same 
medium in which they were made. 

My conclusions on General Putnam's character have 
been formed on " sound and undeniable facts,^^ each of 
which is given, at length, in the pages referred to by 
" SelaJi," with ample authorities, at the foot of each page, 
to sustain it, all of which, cmd many others, can be found in 
the Library of the Connecticut Historical Society, and in 
every respectable private library, in your city. When the 
worthlessness of these authorities shall have been estab- 
lished, the deductions which have been drawn therefrom 
will, of course, fall to the ground, and " Selah " be recog- 
nized as tJie great historical touchstone; until that time, 
your correspondent will, probably, remain what, so far as 
.this subject goes, he now is — an anonymous scribbler. 

My remarks, respecting the place of General Putnam's 
birth, appear to have disturbed " Selah's " repose ; and 
Pomfrct, Conn,, instead of Salem, Mass., is, indirectly, 
claimed as his birth-place. I have not had access to " the 
oldest inhabitants" of Pomfret, and " all the town records," 
which " go to prove that he [General Putnam] was hor7i 
in that town." That privilege has been reserved, solely, 
for " Selah," I presume; although he modestly conceals the 
special advantage which he has gained, under a general 
assertion. It has been my humble lot, not knowing of 
" Selah," or his aged friends, or more aged town records, 
to follow the Rev. Dr. Allen {Biograp)hical Dictionary, 
3d ed., p. G85), Dr. Thatcher {3Iilitary Journal, Appendix, 
p. 387), Colonel David Humphrey's {Life of Putnam, p. 8), 
and the inscription on General Putnam's tomb at Brook- 
lyn, Conn., all of which say he was born at Salem, Mass., 
with which I have been, and am still, perfectly contented. 



Dawson's fiest letter. 29 

" Selah " cites my remarks on the she-wolf and folded 
blanket, only " to show the vein of sarcasm and prejudice 
that pervades the whole article," without even attempting 
to deny their truth. I need only say that his zeal, to this 
extent at least, has been compelled to give way, unwillingly, 
to his discretion. 

While commenting on my remarks concerning General 
Putnam's questionable gallantry on Bunker's Hill, " Selah" 
becomes a falsifier ; and this, Mr. Editor, has mainly 
influenced me in asking the space in your columns which 
this note will occupy. / have never said, or thought, that 
" a body of Connecticut men, led by a man whom you have 
all learned to look up to as a hero, were inactive," and 
"quietly standing on the safe side of Bunker's Hill," as 
" Selah " falsely insinuates, and his pious ejaculations on 
the subject, like other parts of his story, pass harmlessly 
away. I have said that General Putnam was on the 
shady side of the hill, " with a large body of men," whom— 
as I say four or five lines above— he. had withdrawn from 
Colonel Prescott's force within the redoubt, in which^ 
after they ceased their labor, there had been 710 Con- 
necticut men, and from which, consequently, there could 
not have been any withdrawn. The Connecticut men 
were behind the ra?7/ence— not in the redoubt; and under 
the noble Thomas Knowlton, of Ashford, Conn., they did 
their duty there. I have now before me, in the hand- 
writing of that same glorious Thomas Knowlton— com- 
pared with whose deeds and patriotism those of Israel 
Putnam are but worthless trash.— the roll of that Ashford 
Company, which, under his command, on the banks of the 
Mystic, June 17th, 1775, secured for Putnam and Con- 
necticut what both have since enjoyed, but neither 
acknowledged. 



30 Dawson's first letter. 

When I look on this interesting relic ; read the remarks 
which appear on the margin, opposite the names of those 
who fell on that memorable day; and examine the accounts, 
and receipts for pay, and, sometimes, for "' sarse-money " of 
the survivors; and then glance over "/S'e^a/i's" appeal to 
the " Sons of Connecticut," as the conservators of the 
honor of Connecticut, I cannot avoid the reflection that 
this same purely patriotic Knowlton, and many of the 
signers of these receipts, fell in a successful attempt to 
restore the honor of Connecticut, which had been trailed 
in the dust at Kipp's Bay; that they all now rest without 
a stone, or even a stake, to mark their burial places; and 
that " Selali " and his " Sons of Connecticut " (in their 
" reverential awe " of the " relics " of General Putnam) 
appear to have forgotten, if they ever knew, that Thomas 
Knowlton, John Keyes and Daniel Allen, and their 
men, ever lived or died for the honor of Connecticut. 

" Selah's " wonted discretion shows itself in the empty 
declamation with which he condemns my remarks on 
General Putnam's " gallantry " on Bunker's Hill, and it 
needs no particular notice from me. If it will gratify 
him, however, I may be allowed to say, that it is not true 
that General Putnam performed " those brave and gallant 
deeds" referred to by '' Selah,'' or any of them; that he did 
not, " as the battle alarm came on the winds from the field 
of Lexington, leave the plow in the furrow, and hasten to 
the scene of strife, to mingle in the fray;" that his heart 
did not " warm and thrill with those generous impulses, 
and his spirit burn with an intense and unconquerable 
desire to serve his country;" that no " works of prejudiced 
historians " or of envious contemporary officers, either 
" garbled " or complete, are required to establish " the 



Dawson's first letter. 31 

ignorant, self-conceited inefficiency of General Putnam," 
or the truth of Colonel Prescott's charge against his 
gallantry at Bunker's Hill — nor will they be required for 
such a purpose, while the names and words of John 
Stark, David Wooster, John Sullivan, Geoi?ge Clin- 
ton, and George Washington are remembered ; or the 
slopes at Gowanus or the rocky heights on the Highlands 
remain undisturbed : and, finally, that until the connection 
between General Putnam and Majors Small and Mon- 
CRiEFFE of the Royal army, and the charges of a question- 
able intimacy with the enemy, which Robert R. Living- 
ston preferred against the General {Letter to General 
Washington, January 14, 1778), remain unexplained, as 
they now are, " Selah " might reasonably select some other, 
if not more fitting object, for his " hero-worship," and as 
the representative of Revolutionary Connecticut. 

I am a stranger to nearly all your neighbors — the only 
resident of Hartford with whom I am personally acquainted 
is, I believe, now in Rome — and I would be sorry to con- 
sider " Selah " a fair representative of that ancient and 
respectable town. An examination of my sentiments, and 
of the authorities which I refer to in support of them, as 
well as the production of evidence to disprove my state- 
ments, is invited and expected. I was not prepared, how- 
ever, to find in the columns of a widely-circulating journal, 
published in a distant city, a personal assault such as this; 
and I am consoled with the reflection that its author, 
conscious of his own dishonor, masks his identity under 
the cloak of the " Psalmist of Israel." With his acknowl- 
edged " reverential awe," when in the presence of the 
" relics " of such departed worthies as General Putnam ; 
with his steady rejection of the written authority, when it 



32 Dawson's first letter. 

interferes with the traditions of the fathers ; with the 
customary multiplication of birth-places for his saint, as is 
usual with such people; and with his practical justification 
of the means in the accomplishment of the end, the locality 
of " Selah" is easily determined; and I leave him with his 
fraternity, and with your readers, to be rewarded as they 
may, severally, see fit. 

Respectfully, Yours, 

HENRY B. DAWSON. 



"SELAH'S" SECOND LETTER. 



[KnoM THE "Hariford Daily Post," FKiiRrARV '~3, 1S59.1 



To the Editor of the Hartford Daily Post : 

In your issue of the 5tli inst., I find a letter from Mr, 
Dawson, in which he indulges to an excessive degree in 
gasconade and self-esteem, in an unavailing attempt to 
fortify an untenable position which he saw fit to take in 
his work, the " Battles of the United States by Sea and 
Land." In that work he took it upon himself to belabor 
and stigmatize, in an unjust and unwarrantable manner, the 
life and services of General Israel Putnam. In an issue 
of your paper for the 27th ult., I made reference to this 
spirit of prejudice and ill-will toward General Putnam, as 
evinced by Mr. Dawson in the compilation of his work, 
and gave several quotations from the same, upon which I 
took the liberty to make some strictures, commenting upon 
them, pronouncing them false in their sentiment and de- 
sign, and stating that no proof could be produced to verify 
his statements — as I do 72010, most emphatically. 

Mr. Dawson in his letter charges me with a personal 
attack upon him. I had hoped that he was a man of too 
good sense to be led away with so ridiculous an idea. 
Every man who issues from the press a work treating upon 
history, is resjjonsible for what he has said therein. And 
if his work will not bear the eye and pen of criticism, it is 
5 



84 ■ selah's second letter. 

worth but little. Now, if to comment upon the sentiments 
and tenor of that work is to " personally assault " the 
author of it, then I have assaulted Mr. Dawson ; and, if 
such be the effect of criticism, it is a thing entirely new to 
me. But enough of this. 

Mr. Dawson, after referring to several works, to be 
used as " authorities " to prove my statements false, and 
render the name of Putnam infamous, (some of which I 
shall refer to to prove the reverse,) he makes use of the 
following scandalous language : 

" If it will gratify him, however, I may be allowed to 
say that it is not true that Gen. Putnam performed ' those 
brave and gallant deeds ' referred to by ' Selah,' or any of 
them ; that he did not ' as the battle alarm came on the 
winds from the battle of Lexington, leave the plough in 
the furrow, and hasten to the scene of strife, to mingle in 
the fray ;' that his heart did not ' warm and thrill with 
those generous impulses, and his spirit burn with an in- 
tense and unconquerable desire to serve his country ;' that 
710 ' works of prejudiced historians, or of envious cotempo- 
rary officers,' cither ' garbled ' or complete, are required to 
establish ' the ignorant, self-conceited inefficiency of Gen. 
Putnam,' or the truth of Col. Prescott's charge against 
his gallantry at Bunker's Hill." 

Now, this is so exceedingly absurd, so rankling with 
prejudice, and so overloaded with untruth, that it does 
really seem sheer nonsense to make any reply to it. Nor 
is this my opinion barely ; others, far better versed in the 
history of our country than I ever expect to be, look upon 
it in the same light, and express themselves in the same 
manner. But, lest some may read the sentiments of Mr. 
Dawson, and, being 'ignorant of the facts in the premises, 



r'o 



SELAH S SECOND LETTER. 35 

accept tlicm as the law, I feel myself constrained to give a 
few quotations from undoubted authorities, and so allow 
the public to see what a mass of evidence and what a host 
of vouchers that gentleman has set his face against, for the 
purpose of carrying on his disgraceful war against the un- 
spotted reputation of a Hero of the Revolution, long since 
gathered to the dust of his fathers. 

The works from which I quote are to be obtained at any 
book-store and in any library, and all may refer to them, 
that they may satisfy themselves of the accuracy of my 
quoting, and the authority I have for pronouncing Mr. 
Dawson's statements utterly false and untenable. 

In reference to Putnam's adventures in the French War, 
I find the following in Dr. Allen's " American Biographi- 
cal Dictionary : " 

" During the French War, he was appointed to command 
a company of the first troops which were raised in Con- 
necticut, in 1755. He rendered much service to the arm) 
in the neighborhood of Crown Point. In 1756, while nea. 
Ticonderoga, he was repeatedly in the most imminent 
danger. He escaped, in an adventure of one night, ivith 
tiveJve huUet-hohs in Ms hlmd'efJ' 

Whereabouts in this paragraph, Mr. Dawson, does he 
say that the plurality of bullet-holes was occasioned by 
the folded state of his blanket ? Besides, the number of 
bullet-holes was hcelve, and not fourteen, as stated in your 
work. Mr. Dawson, you do not coi^y your work cor- 
rectly ! 

The author of " Washington and the Generals of the 
Revolution," in speaking of the above adventure, in which 
Putnam was accompanied by a comrade in arms, by the 
name of Durkee, who was wounded, says : 



36 selah's second letter. 

" Amid a shower of bullets, they succeeded in reaching a 
spot of safety ; but, when Putnam came to oifer his can- 
teen of brandy to his w^ounded companion, he discovered 
that one of the enemy's balls had pierced and emptied it, 
and his blanket presented no less than twelve bullet-holes, 
received during their escape." 

In reference to the Battle of Lexington, Dr. Allen has 
the following : 

" He was ploughing in his field, in 1775, when he heard 
the news of the Battle of Lexington. He immediately un- 
yoked his team, left his plough on the spot, and, without 
changing his clothes, set off for Cambridge. He soon went 
back to Connecticut, levied a regiment, and repaired again 
to the camp. In a little time he was promoted to the rank 
of Major-General. In the Battle of Bunker's Hill he ex- 
hibited his usual intrepidity. He directed the men to re- 
serve their fire till the enemy was very near — reminded 
them of their skill — and told them to take good aim. 
They did so, and the execution was .terrible. After the 
retreat, he made a stand at Winter Hill, and drove back 
the enemy under cover of their ship." 

In reference to Gen. Putnam's coolness and bravery, as 
well as promptitude and unwavering decisiveness in cases 
of emergency, we have the following well-known incident' 
as related in Dr. Allen's work : 

" One Palmer, a lieutenant in the Tory new levies, was 
detected in the camp. Governor Tryon reclaimed him as 
a British officer, threatening vengeance if he was not re- 
stored. Gen. Putnam wrote the following pithy reply : 
' Sir— Nathan Palmer, a lieutenant in your King's service, 
was taken in my camp as a spy ; he was tried as a spy ; he 
was condemned as a spy ; and he shall be hanged as a spy. 
P. S. — Afternoon. He is hanged !" 



selah's second letter. 37 

So much for Dr. Allen', one of the " authorities " noticed 
by Mr. Dawson as helping to brand Gen. Putnam as a 
coward and poltroon. And now for Gen. Humphrey, in 
his " Life of Putnam," (another one of Dawson's " authori- 
ties,") who, referring to Putnam's exploit in the wolf-deni 
makes use of the following language : 

" Then it was that the master, [Putnam, in reference to 
his negro man,] angry at the disappointment, and declaring 
that he ivas ashamed to have a coivard in his family, re- 
solved himself to destroj^ the ferocious beast, lest she should 
escape through some unknown fissure of the rock," &c. 

In Botta's " War of the Independence," Vol. I, page 
204, 1 find the following in regard to the Battle of Bunker's 
Hill, during which action Mr. Dawson asserts that Put- 
nam had no command, and took no part : 

" A few moments before the action commenced. Dr. 
Warren, who had been appointed a general, a personage 
of great authority and a zealous patriot, arrived with some 
reinforcements. Gen. Pomeroy made his appearance at 
the same time. The first joined the troops of his own pro- 
vince of Massachusetts ; the second took command of those 
from Connecticut. Gen. Putnam directed in chief/ and 
held himself ready to repair to any point where his presence 
should be most wanted." 

In another place, Botta affirms that the Connecticut 
troops, during that battle, were in the trenches, in the 
very thickest of the fray. Mr. Dawson declares that they 
were skulking behind rail-fences. Trying to dodge the 
bullets, eh ? Poor, " cowardly," " dastardly," " treacherous" 
Connecticut troops! Does your fate and your history 
hang at the point of Mr. Dawson's perjured pen ? God 
forbid ! 



38 selah's second letter. 

The following is from the pen of Dr. Dwight, the elo- 
quent eulogist of Gen. Putnam : 

" It is not so extensively known as it ought to be that 
Gen. Putnam commanded the American forces at the 
battle of Bunker's Hill ; and that to his courage and con- 
duct the United States are particularly indebted for the 
advantages of that day ; one of the most brilliant in the 
annals of this country." 

In the work " Washington and the Generals of the 
Revolution," I fiid the following emphatic words, to 
strengthen my assertion as to Putnam's commandership at 
that battle : 

" After the full accounts given of this event, it is need- 
less to enter into details. Gen. Putnam was there, and 
Gen. Warren volunteered his services, and even offered 
to receive the orders of Putnam, who recommended him to 
the redoubt where Col. Prescott was stationed. In this 
most important conflict, in which the brave and lamented 
Warren fell, Putnam was the only general officer in com- 
mand, and the battle seems to have been conducted under 
his guidance ; nor is it too much to say that most of the in- 
fluence exercised by its results may be ascribed to his 
courage, zeal, and indefatigable efforts." 

The following is a piece of unquestioned proof, as the 
date and circumstances of it will vouch for. It is from 
the cotemporary press of the Revolution, and is found in 
Mr. Frank Moore's forthcoming " Diary of the Revolu- 
tion :" 

" June 17, 1775. — Last evening, Colonel Putnam took 
possession of Bunker's Hill, with about two thousand men, 
and began an entrenchment, which they had made some 
progress in, when, at eight o'clock this morning, a party of 



SELAIIS SECOND LETTER.- 39 

regulars landed at Charlestown, and fired that town in 
different places. Under cover of the smoke, a body of 
about five thousand men marched up to the American en- 
trenchments and made a furious and sudden attack. They 
were driven back three times, and when they were making 
the third attack, one of the Americans imprudently spoke 
aloud that ' their powder was all gone ;' which being heard 
by some of the regular ofiicers, they encouraged their men 
to walk up to their trenches, with fixed bayonets, and 
entered them, on which the Americans were ordered to re- 
treat, which they did with all speed, till they got out of 
musket shot. They then formed, but were not pursued. 
[Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Providence to a 
gentleman in Philadelphia.] — Pennsylvania Journal, June 
28, 1775. 

Mr. Dawson makes a jest and a jeer of Gen. Putnam's 
bold descent of the hill at Horseneck, now called " Put- 
nam's Hill." In the " Connecticut Historical Collections " 
I find the following very emphatic account of that daring 
feat : 

" On the approach of Gov. Tryon to this place, with a 
force of about fifteen hundred men, [Gen. Putnam planted 
two iron field-pieces by the meeting-house, without horses 
or drag ropes. Having fired his cannon several times, 
Putnam, perceiving the British dragoons (supported by the 
infantry,) about to charge, ordered his men, about one 
hundred and fifty in number, to provide for their safety, 
and secured his own by 'phinging doivn the j^reclpice at full 
trot ! The dragoons, Avho were but a sword's length from 
him, stopped short ; for the declivity was so abrupt that they 
dared not follow ! " 



40 selah's second letter. 

Soon after the Battle of Bunker's Hill, Gen. Putnam was 
raised in rank above Generals Wooster and Spencer, who 
were of a superior grade. This supersedeas touched the 
feelings of those gentlemen, more especially Spencer, who 
resigned his commission. Gov. Trumbull, of this State, 
acting under instructions from the General Assembly, 
wrote to Congress, at Philadelphia, in regard to Spencer's 
resignation ; and from that letter I quote the following 
sentence, which speaks volumes in favor of Putnam's 
efficiency : 

" At the same time, they have the highest sense of Gen. 
Putnam's singular merit and services, and request, if it be 
practicable, that some method may be devised to obviate 
the difficulties that are apprehended." 

I might go on making quotations without end, for the 
material and authorities are almost endless ; but it must 
be evident to Mr. Dawson, as well as to all others, that 
such may not be the case — although my will is good enough 
to give every scrap and iota of proof that can bear upon 
the subject — that it is absolutely necessary that all articles 
that find their way into the columns of a daily paper should 
be brief as possible. Mr. Dawson called for the proofs 
of my assertions as to the falsity of his statements. Have 
I not given them ? True, many more to the point might 
be given ; but do not those that are to be found in this 
article suffice to prove my assertions ? I will now merely 
say that Gen. Putnam's numerous adventures and daring 
exploits are too well known and relied upon by the mass 
of people in this State, to have even a shadow of doubt 
thrown upon the truth of the records by any historical 
writer ivliatever ! and that, in regard to the part taken by 
him in the Battle of Bunker's Hill, we must say, with a 



selah's second letter. 41 

contemporary press, that, " outside of Boston, vre presume 
there are few persons, of common intelligence, who enter- 
tain any doubt about it." In regard to Dawson's charge 
of " self-conceited inefficiency," the very charge is so at 
variance with all the authorities quoted, and so evidently 
tinctured with the plague of prejudice, that it cannot be 
entertained by any reasonable mind for an instant. In re- 
gard to the character of the hero, the words of Dr. D wight 
speak a volume of eloquence and truth. He says : 

" Every employment in which he engaged he filled with 
reputation. In the private circle of life— as a husband, 
father, friend and companion — he was alike respected and 
beloved. In his manners, though somewhat more direct 
and blunt than most persons who had received an early 
polished education, he was gentlemanly, and very agree- 
able. In his disposition, he was sincere, tender-hearted, 
generous and noble. It is not known that the passion of 
fear ever found a place in his breast. His word was re- 
garded as an ample security for anything for which it was 
pledged ; and his uprightness commanded absolute confi- 
dence. His intellect was vigorous, and his wit pungent, 
yet pleasant and sportive. * * * During the gayest 
and most thoughtless period of his life, he still regarded 
religion with profound reverence, and read the Scriptures 
with the deepest veneration. In the decline of his life, he 
publicly confessed the religion of the Gospel, and, in the 
opinion of the respectable clergyman of Brooklyn, Rev. 
Dr. Whiting, from whose mouth I received the informa- 
tion, he died hopefully a Christian." 

On his tomb-stone I find the following beautiful inscrip- 
tion, a fitting tribute to the memory of a departed hero : 
6 



42 selah's second letter. 

" Passenger, if thou art a soldier, go not away till thou 
hast dropped a tear over the dust of a Hero, who, ever 
tenderly attentive to the lives and happiness of his men, 
dared to lead where any dared to follow. If thou art a 
Patriot, remember with gratitude how much thou and thy 
country owe to the disinterested and gallant exertions of 
the Patriot who sleeps beneath this marble. If thou art 
an honest, generous, and worthy man, render a sincere and 
cheerful tribute of respect to a man whose generosity was 
singular, whose honesty was proverbial, and who, with a 
slender education, with small advantages, and without 
powerful friends, raised himself to esteem, and to offices of 
eminent distinction, by personal worth, and by the diligent 
services of a useful life ! " 

In concluding this article, I must remark that I presume 
many will make the inquiry — " But what motive has Mr. 
Dawson in thus attempting to villify the fame and charac- 
ter of Gen. Putnam ? " Of this I have no absolute know- 
ledge ; I can only conjecture the general reason (which has 
actuated one or two other New York historians, as well as 
Frothingham, and others, of Massachusetts,) of envy ! 
" Envy of what ?" you will ask. Envy of Gen. Putnam's 
fair fame as a Connecticut ma n; jealousy of the noble part 
taken by a Connecticut man, and by Connecticut troops, on 
the soil of Massachusetts, on the one hand, and a bitter 
feeling engendered in the hearts of New Yorkers, at the 
fact that Connecticut troops, under the gallant Gen. Lee, 
preserved the city of New York from being given up to 
the enemy by its Tory inhabitants, as also the preservation 
of the Highlands, and the whole Hudson valley, by the 
troops from Connecticut, posted there throughout the 
war. Selah. 



HENRY B. DAWSON'S SECOND LETTER. 



[From the " IIaktford Daily Post," March 11 and 12, 1859.] 



White Plains, N. Y,, March 4, 1859. 
To the Editor of the Hartford Post : 

I HA.VE been favored with a copy of the second article 
which " /S^eZa/i " has addressed to you respecting my state- 
ments concerning Gen. Israel Putnam, and I respectfully 
ask a renewal of that indulgence with which you have 
heretofore favored me, in being allowed a hearing in 
reply. 

I am not surprised that " Selah " affects ignorance of the 
difference between a ^^ critic ^^ and a ^^ personal assailant,^' 
in his commendable desire to be recognized as the one, 
rather than to bear the brand of the other. If the charges 
of " prejudice," " rancor," " malice," " falsehood," " per- 
jury," &c., with which I have been assailed, in " Selah's " 
first article, are truly specimens of legitimate "criticism " 
and do not constitute a " i^ersonal assault" I confess I did 
not before know what constituted either the one or the 
other. An examination of the statements contained in a 
work, and a like examination of the motives which influenced 
the writer in making them, constitute two entirely distinct 
subjects which should not be confounded, even by " Selah." 
In fact, these two are so entirely independent, that a posi- 



44 Dawson's second letter. 

tive untruth can be written and published with the most 
honorable and honest purposes, while the matter itself is 
still imtrue, and can never be made to possess any other 
character. I leave the subject, however, for other and 
more interesting portions of " Selali's " letter. 

In his first article, he claimed indirectly that Gen. Put- 
nam was born in Pomfret, Connecticut, and, in my reply, I 
cited Dr. Allen, Dr. Thatcher, Col. Humphreys, and 
the General's tomb, to establish the truth of my statement 
that he was born in Salem,^ Massachusetts, and for no other 
purpose whatever, as an examination of my remarks will 
fully prove. With the greatest coolness, worthy of his 
great examplar, " Selah " says I employed them " to render 
the name of Putnam infamous," and " as helping to brand 
Gen. Putnam as a coward and poltroon." If an establish- 
ment of the fact that Gen. Putnam was born at Salem, 
Massachusetts, likewise established, simultaneously, that he 
was " a coward and poltroon," or " rendered -the name of 
Putnam infamous," as " Selah'' intimates, it would appear 
that the natives of Salem — oven those who emigrated to 
Connecticut and received her homage — were predestinated 
to infamy and dishonor, an idea from which I entirely dis- 
sent. It may be proper to add, in this connection, that as 
Gen. Putnam was really horn in Salem, (" Selah' s " " oldest 
inliabitants " and " town records " to the contrary notwith- 
standing,) and therefore — " Selah " being my authority — 
was " a coward and poltroon," and an " infamous " charac- 
ter, it would appear, from his own confession, that my in- 
genuous opponent has become the voluntary friend and the 
recognized " champion " of disreputable characters, a class 
of people which is always the most noisy respecting its 
honor, without ever shoiving that it possesses any. 



Dawson's second letter. 45 

I am happy in having been the means of diyerting 
" Selah's " attention from less worthy objects to the study 
of the history of his country and the " epitaphs of her 
sons ;" and it affords me pleasure to find that, from the 
bluster of empty words, he has so far descended from his 
airy flights that he has been enabled to cite some " authori- 
ties" to sustain his positions. I thank him for this display 
of the riches of his library, and the extent of his reading, 
taking the liberty to suggest, however, that a few " un- 
doubted authorities," besides those to which he has refer, 
red, may possibly be found " in any library and in any 
book store," and " Selah " may be edified and possibly en- 
lightened by a continuation of his investigations. 

To my denial that " Gen. Putnam performed those brave 
and gallant deeds," &c., " Selah " opposes the General's 
services in the French War, and cites Dr. Allen and Dr. 
Geiswold ; the wolf story, sustained by Col. Humphreys ; 
his services on Bunker Hill, with Botta, D wight, Gris- 
woLD, and "a gentleman in Providence" as authorities; 
and his Horse-neck affair, sustained by Barber's Histori- 
cal Collections. To my remarks respecting the General's 
leaving his plough in the furrow and hastening to Lexing- 
ton, he interposes Dr. Allen's Dictionary ; to my impeach- 
ment of the General's patriotism, he interposes Dr. Dwight 
and the General's epitaph ; and these, with some few 
minor interludes, constitute the whole of " Selah^s" re- 
sponse. In asking space to notice these several points, I 
disclaim any fear that " SelaJi " will " be taken as the law," 
regretting that I cannot reciprocate his good opinion of 
my last letter in that respect. My only object is to estah- 
Ush the truth ; and if the testimony which I propose to sub- 
mit to " the mass of the people of Connecticut "—in this 



• o^ 



46 Dawson's second letter. 

case the umpires between " SelaJi " and myself — is less re- 
liable or less weighty than that adduced by my opponent, 
none will submit with a better grace, or retire from the 
contest with greater satisfaction than I. It is a work of 
but little pleasure, and certainly of no profit, to strip from 
the brows of those who have worn them, the laurels which 
they have stolen from other and better men ; yet the duty 
which falls upon all who pretend to write the history of 
their country, leaves no other course for them to pursue ; 
and I trust that I will not be found wanting either in my 
respect for " established reputations," or in the discharge 
of my duty in connection with them. But to a brief 
notice of " Selali^s " article. 

I. Respecting the General's services in the French War, 
my authorities will be brief, but, I trust, conclusive. An 
examination of the reports of the scouting parties, in 1755, 
will show that, during that year, Captain Israel Putnam 
was sent out on four several scouts — twice as a subordi- 
nate with Major Rogers, and twice with independent com- 
mands. Three of these, as will be seen by the Reports, 
dated Oct. 9, Oct. 22, and Nov. 15, were not productive 
of any honor, because Capt. Putnam kept out of all danger ; 
the other, which was commanded by Major Rogers, has at- 
tracted more attention. On the second of November, while 
Capt. Putnam was concealed on the margin of the lake, 
watching two canoes, which had been sent out on his front 
as decoys, especially for that purpose, the main body of the 
Indians— like Sir Wm. Howe and Sir Henry Clinton, 
some years afterwards — stole upon his rear, and then, as in 

later times, he found safety in running. It was in 

this affair the Indians " Shot Thro' his Blanket in Divers 
Places," and, by reference to the document {Report of Capt. 



Dawson's second letter. 47 

Rogers eg Co., " Camp at Lake George, Nov. 3, 1755,") 
" Selah " may possibly determine whether there were twelve 
or fourteen holes in it ; and, by extending his investigations, 
he may also possibly determine whether the Captain's face 
or his back was toward the enemy, when his blanket was 
thus perforated. 

I may also be permitted to invite " Selah' s " attention to 
Humphreys' Life of Putnam, Ed. Phila., 1798, pp. 20, 21, 
respecting my correctness in copying. The author, after 
describing, in his peculiar manner, the exploit of Nov. 2, 
1755, to which I have referred, and the apocryphal ad- 
venture with Lieut. Durkee, says : " There they betook 
themselves to a large log, by the side of which they lodged 
the remainder of the night. Before they laid down, Put- 
nam said he had a little rum in his canteen, which would 
never be more acceptable or necessary ; but on examining 
the canteen, which hung under his arm, he found the enemy 
had pierced it with their balls, and there was not a drop 
of liquor left. The next day he io\m^ fourteen bullet holes 
in his blanket." Any school-boy can tell " Selah " that a 
soldier's blanket is always folded and carried on his hack, 
during the day and during action ; and, while that fact is 
known, no other evidence is required to prove that the 
blanket was shot through while it was folded, and while its 
owner had his back to the foe. 

Without occupying your space with unnecessary details, 
allow me to pass from 1755 to 1759— from Cajjt. Putnam's 
exploits as a new recruit, in his first campaign, which we 
have just noticed, to Lieut. Col. Putnam, a veteran of five 
years' active duty, and, if " Selah " is correct, of brilliant 
achievements. In 1759, we find him in camp among his 
old associates, and his gallant services, if he had performed 



48 Dawson's second letter. 

any, could not have failed to have secured for him the con- 
fidence of his commander. Under any circumstances, he 
would have been assigned to duties which corresponded, in 
character and importance, with his intellectual and profes- 
sional abilities ; and the records will show how the veteran 
was employed. The Order Books of the army {After 
Orders, Fort Edioard, 19th June, 1759,) show that he was 
ordered to take the command of " eight hundred working 
Men for mending the Roads to the 4 Mile Post." At the 
same time, however, Lieut. E,ebier was ordered to " attend 
to direct the Work," the Commander of the Expedition — 
evidently supposing that Putnam had not sufficient intelli- 
gence to " direct the work" of an ordinary country road- 
master, in filling the ruts and gullies — leaving to the Lieut. 
Colonel no other duty than that of sitting on a log, whit- 
tling a stick, and hurrying onward those of his party who 
were disposed to be idle. On the 15th of July, in the 
same year, two hundred working men were assigned to 
" Lieut. Col. Putnam to finish his Garden," with permis- 
sion "to take what Tools he directs." {General Orders, 
Lake George, 15th July, 1759.) And, on the 8th August, 
" with 334 Provincialls," he was sent out of the camp to 
cut loood, and in this employment he continued during the 
remainder of the season. If " Sclah " desires the details 
of this wood-cutting hero's campaign during the latter part 
of 1759, he can find them in the Order Books of the army, 
{General Orders, Aug. 8, 12, 13, 20, 27 ; Sept. 3, 10, 17, 24 ; 
Oct. 1, 6, 9, 22, and 30, 1759 ;) and if he and " the mass of 
the people of Connecticut," for whom he assumes to speak, 
are content to worship such an idol as this, it is their own 
business, not mine ; yet I may be allowed to remark, that 
the noble School Fund of that State leads those who are 
disinterested to hope for a different result. 



Dawson's second letter. 49 

II. Respecting tlie wolf stoiy, I had supposed that it 
had been so far exploded that none at this late day 
would seriously offer it as an evidence of the bravery of 
Gen. Putnam. I shall not insult your readers so far as 
to repeat the refutations which have already appeared, most 
of which will be obvious to any intelligent person who 
reads the story. I cannot deny myself the privilege, how- 
ever, of copying, for " Selah's " especial benefit, a descrip- 
tion of " the wonderful cave where this terrible beast found 
refuge, and in which Mr. Putnam so gallantly confronted 
and killed her." The Historical 3Iagazine, Vol. 2, page 
20, after describing a visit of the writer with a party of 
students from Providence, to this locality, and repeating 
the substance of Col. Humphreys' description of the cave, 
says : " Now, in reality, it is all of three feet square at the 
mouth, and descends, at a small inclination, for about 
twenty feet. Here the rocks are entirely closed up, and 
no opening could be found, though, for at least half an 
hour, we dug earnestly. The tradition among the people 
is, that it extends much farther into the hill." As this de- 
scription is confirmed by others, who have also visited the 
spot, I leave it for " Selah " to determine how long the 
"rope" must have been which was said to have been 
tied to Putnam's legs when he crept into this remarkable 
den. 

III. Respecting the part which Gen. Putnam took on 
Bunker Hill, " Selah " appears to be peculiarly sensitive ; 
but we are not indebted to his " undoubted authorities " 
alone for our knowledge of that subject. Botta, an 
Italian writer, who never saw America, after having passed 
through the filter of an American translation ; Dwight, 
7 



50 Dawson's second letter. 

whose sermons and theology are more reliable than his 
history ; Griswold, whose forte was not historical re- 
search ; and " a gentleman in Providence," who does not 
pretend to anything bnt " hearsay evidence," and whose 
errors are manifest to every one, are well enough as far as 
they go, and would have been better had we no other and 
more reliable evidence to contradict their statements. 
Can " Selah" possibly suppose that all that relates to 
Bunker Hill and its heroes is concentrated in Botta' 
DwiGHT, Griswold, and " the gentleman in Providence?" 
Let us see what those who were personally present, and the 
contemporary writers say on the subject. The Provincial 
Congress of Massachusetts, under whose authority Bunker 
Hill was occupied, in its official communication on that 
subject to the Continental Congress {In Provincial Con- 
gress, Watertoion, June 20, 1775,) and in its reply to the 
Albany Committee of Safety, when the latter body in- 
quired for the details of the engagement {Minutes of the 
Congress, Wednesday, June 28, 1775) ; the Massachusetts 
Committee of Safety, (in its very full " Account of the late 
battle at Charlestoivn," dated July 25, 1775) ; Capt. Elijah 
Hide, of Lebanon, Connecticut, who was a spectator of the 
scene, {Account of an engagement near Charlestoicn, &c.) ; 
Governor Jonathan Trumbull, of Connecticut, of whose 
facilities for obtaining correct information concerning pass- 
ing events " Selah^' can easily satisfy himself {Letters to the 
Baron J. D. Van der Cajjellan," Lebanon, 31 August, 1779," 
in which he also assigns the command of the troops to 
" the brave Gen. Warren'^) ; the author of the " Narrative of 
the action, ivhich ivas in Cambridge, Mass., June 22, 1775 ;" 
General Folsom, of New Hampshire, in his report to the 
Committee of Safety of that Province, {Letter dated, " 3Ied- 



Dawson's second lettee. 51 

ford, June 22, 1775"j; Isaac Lathrop, at Watertowu, {Let- 
ter to Thaddeiis Burr, Fairfield, Conn., dated " June 22, 
1775," and by tlic latter on the 25tli sent to General 
Wooster) ; Governor John Brooks, of Massachusetts, who 
was a Captain in Col. Bridge's regiment, and a volunteer 
with Col. Prescott, during the whole of Friday night 
and until the close of the action (" Particulars respecting 
the action,^' &c.) ; Col. John Stark, who commanded a 
regiment behind the rail-fence during the battle, {Letter to 
the Provincial Congress of Neiu LLampshire, " Medford, June 
22, 1775"); Captain John Chester, who commanded a 
company of Connecticut troops behind the fence during the 
battle, {Letter to Eev. Joseph Fish, " Cambridge, July 22, 
1775 ") ; Peter Brown, a private in Col. Prescott's regi- 
ment, on the hill in the battle, {Letter to his mother, " Cam- 
hridge, June 25, 1775 ") ; Samuel Gray, who from his lan- 
guage appears to have been on the hill in the battle, {Letter 
to Mr. Dyer, " Boxhury, July 12, 1775") ; Col. William 
xy Prescott, the illustrious " hero of Bunker Hill," {Letter to 
John Adams, '^ Camp at Cambridge, August 25, 1775"); 
Chief Justice Marshall, an officer of the Revolutionary 
army, {Life of Washington, Edit. London, 1804, 2, pp. 289- 
297) ; General Henry Lee, of Virginia, also an officer of 
the same army, {3Iemoirs, Edit. Washington, 1827, pp. 33- 
34) ; Mrs. Mercy Warren, the sister of James Otis, and 
the wife of President James Warren, {IList. of American 
Eevolution, 1, pp. 217-222) ; to say nothing of more recent 
writers, make no allusion whatever to Putnam, in connex- 
ion with the battle of Bunker Hill ; while some of them 
assign the command, either in part or altogether, to other 
persons. These citations prove what I desire them to 
prove — that " in the times which tried men's souls," and 



52 Dawson's second letter. 

among those who were present on Bunker Hill, or imme- 
diately connected wdth it, Putnam was not considered a 
prominent actor in that engagement, in any capacity, or 
entitled to " special mention " in the narratives of that 
event. 

From this branch of the subject let us turn to another 
chapter in the history of Bunker's Hill. On the 17th of 
March, 1776, James Wilkinson— afterwards a Major- 
General in the Army of the United States — walked over 
the field of action, with Colonels John Staek and James 
Reed, of New Hampshire, who, with Thomas Knowlton, 
of Connecticut, commanded the troops who were behind 
the rail-fence in the battle ; and, on their authority, he states 
{3Iemoirs of his own Times, vol. 1, pp. 32-3 ; 841-7) that 
when the reinforcements, under Colonel Stark, came to 
the ground, before the battle. General Putnam was stand- 
ing on the safe side of Bunker's Hill, with entrenching 
tools slung across his horse, and Colonel Gerrish by his 
side ; that they remained there inactive, and with a large 
body of men, while the battle continued ; and that, when 
the troops retreated, the General, and those who were with 
him, quietly fell into the current and retreated with the 
others, without attempting to cover the retreat, or to as- 
sist the fugitives. The account is too long to be copied 
here ; but its substance appears in the following words of 
General Henry Dearborn, who was a Captain in Colonel 
John Stark's regiment, marched over Charlestown Neck 
by the side of his Colonel, and fought on the extreme right 
of the line which occupied the fence : " In the battle of 
Bunker's Hill, he (General Putnam) took post on the de- 
clivity toioards Charlestoivn Nech, where Isaio him on horse- 
back, as we passed on to Breed's Hill, with Colonel Ger- 



Dawson's second letter. 53 

RiSH by his side. I heard the gallant Colonel Prescott 
(who commanded in the redoubt) observe, after the war, at 
the table of his Excellency James Bowdoin, then Governor 
of this Commonwealth, ' that he sent three messengers dur- 
ing the battle to General Putnam, requesting him to come 
forward and take the command, there being no general 
present, and the relative rank of Colonel not having been 
settled ; but tliat ho received no answer, and his whole 
conduct was such, both during the action and the retreat, 
that he had ought to have been shot.' He remained at or 
near the top of Bunker's Hill until the retreat, with Col. 
Gerrish by his side. I saw them together when we re- 
treated. He not only continued at that distance himself 
during the whole of the action, but had a force with him 
nearly as large as that engaged. No reinforcement of 
men or ammunition was sent to our assistance ; and in- 
stead of attempting to cover the retreat of those who had 
expended their last shot in the face of the enemy, he re- 
treated in company with Colonel Gerrish, and his whole 
force, without discharging a single musket ; but what is 
still more astonishing. Colonel Gerrish was arrested for 
cowardice, tried, cashiered, and universally execrated, 
while not a word was said against the conduct of General 
Putnam, whose extraordinary popularity alone saved him, 
not only from trial, but even from censure." * * * 
" When General Putnam's ephemeral and unaccountable 
popularity subsided or faded, away, and the minds of the 
people were released from the shackles of a delusive trance, 
the circumstances relating to Bunker's Hill were viewed or 
talked of in a very different light, and the selection of the 
unfortunate Colonel Gerrish as a scape-goat, considered as 
a mysterious and inexplicable event." There is also ample 



54 Dawson's second letter. 

corroboration of this in General Heath's words {3Iemoirs, 
p. 19). " Just before the action began, General Putnam 
came to the redoubt, and told Colonel Prescott that the 
entrenching tools should be sent oif, or they would be lost. 
The Colonel replied that if he sent any of the men away 
with the tools, not one of them would return. To this the 
General answered, ' they shall every man return.' A 
large party was then sent off with the tools, and not one 
of them returned," as General Stark, Wilkinson and Dear- 
born have related. 

There is still another chapter in the history of Bunker's 
Hill which " Selah " may study with profit ; and after hav- 
ing opened that, and noticed a little interlude connected 
with the battle, I propose to dismiss the subject. In chap- 
ter V. of " The Battles of the United Statesj" I have given 
to Colonel Prescott the chief command ; while Generals 
Warren, Pomeroy and Putnam, as volunteers, without 
command, are also said to have been on the field before the 
action. The two former remained there during the day — 
one iii the redoubt and the other behind the fence ; but 
Putnam retired before the battle began, taking with him 
the intrenching tools and part of Colonel Peescott's men, 
to carry them— neither the men or the General appearing 
afterwards. The retirement from the field and subsequent 
inactivity of General Putnam having been already noticed, 
I need only call " Selali's " attention to the following " un- 
doubted authorities," from contemporary evidence, respect- 
ing the question of the commander : Governor John 
Brooks, Generals William Heath, Henry Lee, James 
Wilkinson and Henry Deaeborn, whose several testi- 
monies have been already referred to ; Rev. John Martin, 
"who was in the thickest of it," {Communicated to Prest. 



Dawson's second letter. 55 

Stiles, of Yale College, and entered in his Diary, June 30, 
1775) ; Hon. John Pitts, an influential member of the 
Committee of Safety, {Letter to Saminel Adams, " JVatertotvn, 
July 20, 1775 ") ; Dr. James Thatcher, of the Revolution- 
ary army, {Military Journal, pp. 26, 29) ; Hon. William 
Tudor, Judge Advocate, who tried Colonel Gerrish and 
other delinquent officers, {Columbian Centinal, July 11, 
1818) ; Dr. William Gordon, whose personal acquaintance 
with the New England officers at that time gave him great 
facilities for obtaining correct information {Hist, of Am. 
Revolution, Ed. London, 1788, 2, p. 39), Chief Justice Mar- 
shall, {Life of Wasliington, Ed. London, 1804, 2, p. 289) ; 
and Daniel Webster, North American Be vietv, July, 1818) ; 
to say nothing of the complete work of Mr. Frothingham, 
{Siege of Boston), and other modern writers — all sustain me 
in assigning to Colonel Prescott the chief command, and 
in claiming for him the honor of having been " the hero of 
Bunker's Hill." 

The interlude to which I have referred is that in which 
" Selah " tries " to keep his courage np," by whistling over 
the rail-fence. His assertion that I had " declared " that 
"the Connecticut troops were skulking behind rail fences," 
does not affect me in the least ; and, if it was not perfectly 
evident that " Selah " is ignorant of the details of the ac- 
tion, I should pass the subject, with the silent contempt 
Avhich it merits. I am not surprised, however, that " Selah " 
is ignorant of the locality of the rail-fence on the banks of 
the Mystic, where Thomas Knowlton, and such of the 
Connecticut troops as did their duty, were stationed, and 
where William Cheney, Ashel Lyon, and Benjamin Russ 
laid down their lives for the defense of their country. 
That spot is holy ground, rendered sacred by the presence 



56 Dawson's second letter. 

and the blood of patriotic yeomanry, who battled nobly, 
and, in some instances, as nobly died, not only for " the 
honor of Connecticut," but for the honor and the rights 
of their entire race. This post of danger was too holy 
for Israel Putnam to take comfort in ; and as he aban- 
doned it, and those who were standing there, in June, 
1775, so those who are his disciples and imitators, in 1859, 
assume to be as ignorant of its existence, and of the names 
of those who fought there, as they are ignorant, in reality, 
of the virtues, the bravery, the honor, and the patriotism 
of Thomas Knowlton, John Chester, William Coit, and 
their associates, from Connecticut, who stood behind the 
homely structure and battled with the enemy. 

IV. Respecting the Horse-neck affair, so completely has 
it been exposed that I need not occupy your space further 
than by citing the words of Mr. Lossing {Field Book of the 
Revolution, 1 p. 413), who, after describing the ground, and 
giving a view of it, says : " The feat was perilous, but, 
under the circumstances, not very extraordinary ;" and 
by appealing to every person who has seen the side hill 
over which the General took his zig-zag sliding course, re- 
specting the entire truth of Mr. Lossing's statement. 

V. To my denial that " as the battle alarm came on the 
winds from Lexington, General Putnam left the plough in 
the furrow and hastened to the field of strife," &c., " Selah '' 
interposes Dr. Allen's Biographical Dictionary. As an 
essential modification of this story, allow me to refer the 
attention of my opponent to Bancroft's United States, 1 
pp. 315. 

VI. To my denial of General Putnam's "intense and 
unconquerable desire to serve his country, " Selah " parades, 
in reply, Dr. Dwight's eulogy and the GeneraVs epitaph ! 



Dawson's second letter. 57 

The " lionor of Connecticut " must be greatly endangered 
wlien the characters of lier heroes have no other standard 
THAN THEIR OWN EPITAPHS. In this selcction " Selah " has 
done well, and evinced his zeal for the honor of his State. 
A theologian and an epitaph ! Let us see what the facts 
are. Putnam entered the service as Second Brigadier 
General of the Connecticut troops— Wooster and Spencer, 
being his superiors in everything but dishonesty. Soon 
afterwards a skirmish took place on Noddle's Island, in 
which Colonel John Stark, with some New Hampshire 
troops, and some unknown officer, with a party of Massa- 
chusetts troops, displayed great abilities and firmness. A 
reinforcement was afterwards sent from Cambridge to 
strengthen Colonel Stark, and Doctor Joseph Warren 
and General Putnam accompanied them ; but as there were 
no Connecticut troops among them. General Putnam pos- 
sessed no authority, and exercised none. The first news 
of the skirmish reached the Congress while that body was 
consulting on the subject of the General officers ; and his 
friends, ever ready to seize any little circumstance which 
might benefit their own clique, claimed the victory for 7mw, 
and, by pushing the subject, secured his appointment as 
Major-General, before the truth could reach the Congress. 
This result caused great dissatisfaction in the army, and 
drove from it some of its most able officers — all of which 
this " Christian Patriot " was fully advised of— yet he not 
only retained his appointment, to the injury of his country's 
cause, but, when General Washington desired to retain all 
the commissions, in order that the Congress might be en- 
abled to reconsider the appointments, pro bono puhlico, 
Putnam frustrated the design, by securing, htj sharp prac- 
8 



58 Dawson's second letter. 

tice, tlie commission which had been filled with his name. 
" Selah " may find other details of this afi"air in Roger 
Sherman's Letter to General Wooster, (" Phila., June 23, 
1775,") and General Washington's Letter to the President 
of Congress, (" Camj) at Camhridge, lOtJi July, 1775.") 
Shortly afterwards, the Battle of Bunker Hill was fought, 
and, as has been seen, this patriotic officer, a second time, 
attempted to appropriate, to his own advantage, the honors 
which others had gained. As " Selah " has informed us, 
Putnam was subsequently sent to the city of New York ; 
but with such positive instructions, that he could do but 
little harm. {Orders and Listructions to Major-General 
Putnam, March 29, 1776.") While there, however, he re- 
ceived into his family the daughter of Major Moncrieffe, 
the distinguished British engineer, then on duty at Staten 
Island. " Not long after, a flag of truce arrived from Staten 
Island, with letters from Major Moncrieffe, demanding 
her ; for he now considered her as a prisoner. General 
Washington would not acquiesce in this demand, saying, 
' She should remain as a hostage for her father's good be- 
havior ! ' When General Washington refused to give her 
up, tlie nohle-minded Putnam, as if it were by instinct, laid 
his hand on his sword, and, with a violent oath, swore that 
* her father's request should be granted.' " The " noble- 
minded Putnam " — " Selah's " patriotic and Christian-like 
hero — notwithstanding his " sword " and his " violent oath," 
did not secure the female spy from General Washington's 
grasp ; and if " Selah " desires to pursue the investigation 
he will find the details in Davis' " Meinoirs of Aaron Burr, 
1 pp. 86-90, and in the " Memoirs of 3Irs. Margaret Coghlan, 
(Daughter of the late 3Iajor ^loncrieffe). Edit. New York, 
1794, pages 35-40." Passing thence, over Putnam's ex- 



Dawson's second letter. 59 

ploits in the action on Long Island, at Philadelphia, and in 
the Highlands of the Hudson, in all of which " Selah " 
needs some light, I need only allude to his refusal to send 
forward the troops, when General Washington ordered 
them, which resulted in the loss of the forts on the Dela- 
ware, and the occupation of Philadelphia in 1777 ; and to the 
action of General Washington, when an attempt was made 
in the Congress, in 1773, to send Putnam to Rhode Island, 
which called forth that letter from Yalley Forge, March 
6, 1778, in which, after referring to Putnam, the illus- 
trious chief uses these words : " With such materials as 
I have, the work must go on ; whether well or ill, is 
another matter. If, therefore, he and others are not laid 
aside, they must be placed where they can least injure the 
service." 

An opportunity to " lay him aside " soon occurred. The 
Congress had been, before, compelled, by the " higher 
power " of public opinion — the vox populi — to order an in- 
vestigation of the causes which led to the loss of the Forts 
Clinton and Montgomery, {Journal of Congress, Nov. 28, 
1777,) and, soon afterwards, grave charges were made 
against his fidelity to his country. One of these {Robert 
R. Livingston, to General Washington, " 3Ianor of Living- 
ston, 14 January, 1778,") contains these words : " Your 
Excellency is not ignorant of the extent of General Put- 
nam's capacity and diligence ; and, how well soever these 
may qualify him for the management of this work, a most 
important command, the prejudices to which his imprudent 
lenity to the disaffected, and a too great intercourse ivith 
the enemy, have given rise, have greatly injured his influ- 
ence. How far the loss of Fort Montgomery, and the sub- 
sequent ravages of the enemy, are to be imputed to him, 



60 Dawson's second letter. 

I will not venture to say, as this will necessarily be deter- 
mined by a Court of Inquiry, whose determinations I 
would not anticipate. Unfortunately for him, the current 
of po}»ular opinions, in this and the neighboring States, and 
as far as I can learn, in the troops under his command, 
runs strongly against him." If " SelaJi " can find comfort 
in the answer which this serious charge elicited from Gene' 
ral Washington, I shall take pleasure in comforting him. 
In his letter to Mr. Livingston, (" Valley Forge, 12 3Iarch, 
1778,") after acknowledging the receipt of the above, the 
General says : " It has not been an easy matter to find a 
just pretense for removing an officer from his command, 
where his misconduct rather appears to result from want 
of capacity, than from any real intention of doing wrong ; 
and it is therefore, as you observe, to be lamented th^^t he 
cannot see his own defects, and make an honorable retreat 
from a station in which he only exposes his own weakness. 
Proper measures are taking to carry on the inquiry into 
the loss of Fort Montgomery, agreeably to the directions 
of Congress ; and it is more than probable, from what I 
have heard, that the issue of that inquiry will afford just 
grounds for a removal of General P. But whether it 
does or not, the prejudices of all ranks in that quarter 
against him are so great, that he must, at all events, be 
prevented from returning." As General Putnam was di- 
rected to proceed to Connecticut, soon afterwards, on re- 
cruiting service, and subsequently, it is said, joined the 
church, it has not appeared necessary to pursue this branch 
of my investigation. His subsequent conduct, on the recom- 
mendation of Mr. Whiting — whose funeral sermon over 
the General's remains was the commencement of the con- 
troversy on the subject of the command at Bunker Hill — 



Dawson's second letter. 61 

has been endorsed to the public by Dr. Dwight, the Gene- 
ral's tomb-stone, and " Sclali " / and I am not disposed to 
disturb its repose. 

YII. " Selah " appears to desire notoriety, and he boldly 
asks a question respecting my motives in making the re" 
marks on General Putnam, which he condemns ; and as 
boldly he answers it : 

" Fools rush in where angels fear to tread," 

and " Selah " may yet live to learn that, for the motives 
which actuate men, they are not accountable to man. If 
it will gratify him, however, I may suggest that his answer 
is not correct. General Putnaii was not a Connecticut 
man, but a Massachusetts man ; and that, of itself, would 
prove his error. I beg to suggest, however, that General 
Putnam never presented any trait of character which New 
York had any necessity to " envy." While he was in com- 
mand of this post, there ivas no " enemy " in the country, to 
whom the city could be " given up " by its Tory inhabit- 
ants, or any other power; and if it had not been so. General 
Putnam could have done but little. General Charles 
Lee, subsequently a traitor, had formed plans for the de- 
fense of the city ; and when General Putnam succeeded 
him, the latter was so tied down by orders, that no change 
could be made, except with the general consent of his Brig- 
adiers and Engineers, and then only in minor matters. 
(Orders and Instructions to Major-General Putnam, 31arch, 
29,1776.) What does ''Selah'' suppose New York has 
occasion to " c?ry?/" in General Putnam, while the slopes 
of Goirannvs arc daily before her eyes, and the Highlands 
within two hours' ride of the homes of her inhabitants ? 
Does " Selah" suppose that his hero's manoeuvres at the 



62 Dawson's second letter. 

former place were so attractive that Philip Schuyler, 
orEiCHA^RD Montgomery, Alexander McDougal, or John 
MoRiN Scott, Marinus Willett, or John Lamb, James 
Clinton, or Nicholas Herkimer, George Clinton, or 
Benjamin Tallmadge, Alexander Hamilton, or Aaron 
Burr,* could not have produced a result quite as profitable 
to the country, under similar circumstances ? or which of 
these officers could not have been quite as successful as 
Putnam was, in his defense of the Highlands, Oct. 6, 
1777 ? 

In conclusion, I beg to remark that " Selah^' manifests 
great uneasiness respecting the "honor of Connecticut," 
and "the Connecticut troops"— as much so, in fact, as if 
General Putnam was a Connecticut man ; the only source 
of the honor of Connecticut ; or the only soldier she ever 
produced. I beg " Selah" will keep perfectly cool. My 
business has not been, and is not now, with Connecticut 
men, the honor of Connecticut, or the troops she sent to 
the field. All these need no eulogy either from " Selah " 
or from me ; nor can the detraction of either the one or 
the other seriously affect them. I have been, and still am, 
dealing solely with a Massachusetts man, known as 
General Israel Putnam, and a nondescript known as 

* Colonel Burr, the least popular of tliese officers, was an aid-de-camp in General 
Putnam's family in 177G ; and Colonel Ricuard Platt, a distinguished officer of the 
Revolutionary army, thus compares the services of both these officers : " From my 
knowledge of that General's qualities and the Colonel's, I am very certain that the lat- 
ter directed all the movements and operations of the former.'" — (Letter to Commo- 
dore Valentine Morris, JSfeio York, Jan. 27, 1814.) In the same letter the same 
officer " presents Burr in contrast with his equals in rank, and his superiors in com- 
mand," by comparing General Putnam's defeat in the Highlands, with two thousand 
men under his command, and Colonel Burr's successful movement, with one hundred 
and fifty men, in defending the west side of the river, below the Highlands, against the 
same enemy. The entire letter can be found in Davis' Memoirs oj' Aaron Burr, 
(N. Y., 1838) 1 pp. 175-181. 



Dawson's second letter. 63 

"SelahJ^ Tlic former, by intrigues, and possibly by had 
liquor dispensed over his own counter,* supplanted sundry 
Connecticut officers, whose services could be but poorly 
spared in exchange for his ; did more than all others to dis- 
grace Connecticut by his official incompetency, and by his 
selfish desire for the emoluments of office ; and, by his disre- 
gard for every " generous impulse " which springs spon- 
taneously from every honest man's breast, stole, for his 
own purposes, the glory which belonged to other and bet- 
ter men : the latter by a process peculiarly his own, seeks 
to keep the bubble inflated, and to conceal the deception 
which has so long been practised on the people. Tlie for- 
mer of these has gone to his reward : the latter, in the 
name of the mass of " the people of Connecticut," but 
without their authority, elevates " the relics " of his saint, 
and seeks the homage of the world. It has been my lot to 
refuse obedience to this demand ; and if, in my humble en- 
deavors to defend myself, I have been instrumental in 
drawing the attention of any to the evidences of the fraud; 
or if the memory of Thomas Knowlton and his gallant 
associates has awakened a single sympathetic sigh, my 
labors have not been spent without a full and satisfactory 
reward. 

Sincerely, Yours, 

HENRY B. DAWSON. 



* General Putnam, before he entered the service, had kept a covntry tai'ern, in the 
town oCPcmifret. My readers, whetlier in Connecticut or New York, will recogijize in 
the evil practice referred to in the text, one of the most usual and iuliiieutial, but dis- 
reputable means by which ambitious and unscrnpvilous office-seekers, sudi as Putnam. 
?ofl.s, have ever endeavored to secure the votes which their own lack of merit could never 
command. 



^'SELAH'S" THIRD LETTER. 



[FU IM TUB " lUuTIOUD DAILY I'OST," AVKIL IS, I'.t, 20, 21, 2.3, 2.'), 1809,] 



" 8o prnvc it. 
That the probation bear no hinge nor loop, 
To hang a doubt on." 

To the Editor of the Hartford Post : 

In your issue for the 23d of February, appeared an 
article from my pen, " In Reply to Mr. Dawson," which 
was called out by statements made by that gentleman, in a 
previous issue of your paper, in reference to the Life and 
Services of General Putnam. To this article Mr. Dawson 
made reply in your issues for March 11 and 12, wherein he 
attempts to establish his statements by publishing an inter- 
minable list of references to " private letters," and in which 
also he does General Putnam the great injustice of adding 
still more epithets and inuendoes to the already long list 
which he had previously attached to the name and memory 
of that hero, both in his published work and in his former 
letters in your columns. 

To refute these unjust and calumnious statements has 
been my great desire, since reading his last letter ; but, 
through a great lack of time on my part, and also through 
the crowded state of your columns, for the past two or 
three weeks, I have been unable to fulfill the promise I had 



SELAIl's THIRD LETTER. 65 

made myself, of giving to the public a few facts in regard 
to this affair, and showing them how little of impartial his- 
tory lies in Mr. Dawson's sketch of General Putnam's 
life. 

In my former article, I substantiated the various deeds 
of honor and renown appertaining to General Putnam by 
such authorities as Dr. Allen, Dr. Griswold, Colonel 
Humphrey, Dr. Dwight, Rev. Dr. Whitney, M. Botta, and 
Mr. Barber— all of whom rank high in historical litera- 
ture, and have been oft quoted as undoubted authorities. 
Mr. Dawson, however, affects to laugh at them ; casts them 
aside as worthless trash ; claims them to be without au- 
thority ; sets himself up, with his budget of " private let- 
ters," as the great " historical touchstone ; " and, with all 
the complacence in the world, reels off seven mortal long 
columns, in the commendable purpose of giving the public 
a startling array of letter " titles," written, perAops, by 
some one, and, 2^erha]}S, at some time, now to be found, per- 
haps, somewhere — where, probably Mr. Dawson knows far 
better than any one else. Suffice it for my purpose to use 
one of these much vaunted " private letter " authorities as 
a test for the whole. I have had a note handed me within 
a few days, from a gentleman of this city, who had read 
Mr. Dawson's letter, from which I was requested " to in- 
sert, in my next article," the following pertinent extract, 
with which request I take a particular pleasure in comply- 
ing. Here we have it : — " A gentleman of this city will 
give ten dollars for a duly authenticated copy of the letter 
from Governor Trumbull, of Connecticut, to Van der 
Capellan, in which the former informs the latter that 
General Putnam did not command at Bunker^ s Hill ! " That 

9 



66 selah's third letter. 

is certainly fair enough ; all that is required is a " duly au- 
tJcenticated copy " of the letter, to be deposited in the hands 
of the Secretary of this State, in this city, and the money 
will be forthcoming. It will j)ciy ^i'* Dawson to copy 
that letter, and forward the same. He claimed, in his 
last, that Governor Trumbull wrote to John Derk, Baron 
Van der Capellan, that " General Putnam did not com- 
mand at Bunker's Hill." If that letter is in existence, 
Mr. Dawson can establish his authorities ; otherwise they 
all fall to the ground. 

Mr. Dawson, in referring to the exploits of Putnam in 
the wolf-den, at Plorseneck, and in the French War, ad- 
duces nothing to refute them that has a semblance of valid- 
ity or argument. In fact, what he does say in regard to 
them is simply an acknowledgment of his performance of 
those daring feats, but a denial of there being any special 
merit or bravery in their performance. His sole object 
seems to be to detract from General Putnam's reputation 
as a man, a soldier, and a patriot. And in this endeavor 
he has touched most severely on his actions in the Battle 
of Bunker's Hill. Now, it is on the part he took in that 
battle that I would form a test. And it is also with the 
evidence that I will adduce in reference to General Put- 
nam's position in that battle that I will build up at once a 
monument of that hero's glory and of Mr. Dawson's 
shame. 

And first, in regard to the part taken by General Put- 
nam in the occupation of the heights of Bunker's Hill and 
the construction of the redoubts. 

It is a well known fact that Putnam held a regularly 
commissioned command of the Continental troops previous 
to the battle of Bunker's Hill. The official certificate of 



SELAH S THIRD LETTEE. 07 

Mr. Day, Secretary of tlie State of Connecticut, still on 
record, states that Putnam was appointed Brigadier-Gene- 
ral over tlie forces of that colony, by the General Assem- 
bly, in April, 1775. Pie went to Cambridge immediately 
after the battle of Lexington, {Notes to Colonel SweWs 
" History of the BunJcer's Hill Battle," p. 20.) On the 27tli 
of April, 1775, Colonel Huntington, of the Connecticut 
troop, wrote Governor Trumbull, from Cambridge, {3Ias- 
sachusetts Historical Library,) " General Ward being at 
Roxbury, General Putnam is commander-in-chief at this 
place." The Journal kept by Governor Trumbull, ( Tr urn- 
hull Papers, 31ass. Hist. Lib.,) states that Putnam, "after 
learning of the battle of Lexington, rode over to him [the 
Governor] for instructions ; and that he [the Governor] 
bade him " repair at once to Cambridge, and take charge 
of the troops, and he would make out his commission and 
send it on after him." Thus we have abundant evidence 
that General Putnam was the commander-in-chief of the 
American troops before the battle. Now, taking this for 
granted, it is but fair to suppose that he also commanded 
them in the battle. 

When the subject of fortifying the heights of Bunker's 
Hill was first discussed in the American camp, the respec- 
tive capabilities of the raw militia of the Colonies and the 
well-disciplined royal army were, of course, much canvas- 
sed, and many objections were raised as to the feasibility 
of a project which certainly seemed to promise a poor re- 
sult to the brave but ill-disciplined militia, in their pro- 
posed passage at arms with a large force of roj^al troops, 
who, both officers and men, formed a selected section from 
Britain's military arm. General Ward and Dr. Warren, 
both brave and gallant men, saw only destruction in the 



68 selah's third letter. 

movement. Not so Putnam ; lie had served many long 
years, side by side, with Britain's cohorts, and knew that, 
though brave and efficient, they were not invincible. When 
Ward and Warren made objection that the enterprise 
would lead to a general engagement, Putnam answered, 
(related by the General himself to his son, after the battle,) 
'' We will risk only two thousand men ; we will go on with 
these, and defend ourselves as long as possible ; and, if 
driven to retreat, we are more active than the enemy, and 
every sfone-ivaU shall he lined tvith their dead I and, at the 
worst, suppose us surrounded, and no retreat, ice ivill set 
our country an examjjle-qf icldch it shall not he ashamed, and 
teach nfiercenarics what men can do determined to live or die 
free ! " Dr. Warren walked the floor — leaned on his 
chair : " Almost thou persuadest me, General Putnam," 
said he ; " but I must still think the project rash ; if you 
execute it, however, you will not be surprised to find me 
by your side." " I hope not," responded General Putnam ; 
" you are young, and j^our country has much to hope from 
you, in council and in the field ; let us, who are old, and 
can be spared, begin the fray ; there will be time enough 
for you hereafter ; it will not soon be over ! " 

The primary object of fortifying Bunker's Hill, [or, more 
properly, Breed's Hill, on which the battle was fought, 
although it was a part of Putnam's plan to throw up earth- 
works on Bunker's Hill also, so that, in case of being driven 
from Breed's Hill by the enemy, they might make another 
stand on Bunker's Hill,] was to draw the enemy out of 
Boston," on ground where they might be met on equal terms. 
It was Putnam's favorite plan to erect breastworks on 
those heights, for, said he, (as reported by Governor 
Brooks, of IMassachusetts,) "The Americans were not 



selah's third letter. 69 

afraid of their heads, though very much afraid of their 
legs ; if 3'ou cover tliose, they will fight for ever." 

On the 16th of June, 1775, " General Putnam {Col. Sweth 
p. 19,) having the principal direction and superintendence 
of the expedition, and the chief engineer, Colonel Gridley, 
accompanied the detachment on to the heights," where > 
during the ensuing night, earthworks were thrown up with 
surprising rapidity, and of which the enemy knew nothing 
until the following morning. After Putnam had seen " the 
men quietly at their labors," {Col. S if ett, ip. 21,) he "re- 
paired to his camp, to prepare for the anticipated crisis, by 
bringing on reinforcements and to be fresh mounted — his 
furious riding requiring a frequent change of horses." 
After performing these duties, " General Putnam, {Froth, 
ingham^s Siege of Boston, p. IS-i,) ivJio had the confidence of 
the ivhole army, again rode on to the heights, with the in- 
tention of remaining, to share their labors and perils ! " 

Still further, in reference to this part of the affair, we 
have evidence of the most reliable nature from Dr. Stiles, 
afterwards President of Yale College, as noted down by 
him at the time, in his diary, and from which we will give 
the following extracts : — 

'• June 18th, 1775. — Nine o'clock this evening, a gentle- 
man came to town from tlie camp, which he left this morn- 
ing, and informs us that Colonel Putnam is encamped at 
Charlestown, Bunker's Hill, and has lost some of his best 
men, but is determined to stand his ground, having men 
enough. 

"June 19th, 1775. --We have various accounts: some 
that General Putnam is taken and surrounded by the 
King's troops, some that he repulsed them, and had, by the 
assistance of others coming up, placed the regulars between 



70 selah's third letter. 

two fires. At nine o'clock at night, tlie news was that 
General Putnam was forced from his trenches on Bunker's 
Hill, and obliged to retreat, with the loss of forty men 
killed and a hundred wounded. 

" June 20th, 1775.— Mr. William Ellery came in, last 
evening, from Providence, and showed me a letter from the 
Chamber of Supplies, and another from General Greene, 
to Lieutenant-Governor Cooke, (both at Roxbury,) dated 
on Lord's day, giving an account of the battle. General 
Greene says, ' General Putnam, with three hundred men, 
took possession and entrenched on Bunker's Hill on Friday 
night, 16th instant ; ' the Chamber of Supplies says, ' The 
King's troops attacked General Putnam, who defended 
himself with bravery, till overpowered and obliged to 
retreat.' " 

Judge Grosvenor, of Pomfret, Connecticut, states, in an 
affidavit, that " he was in the Connecticut regiment," who, 
with " a much larger number of Massachusetts troops, under 
Colonel Prescott, were ordered by General Putnam to 
march, on the evening of the 16th of June, 1775, to Breed's 
Hill, where, under the immediate superintendence of General 
Putnam, ground was broken, and a redoubt was formed." 

We have also the words of Rev. Mr. Whitney, the per- 
sonal friend and intimate acquaintance of Putnam, who 
says, " The detachment was first put under the command 
of General Putnam, With it he took possession of the 
hill, and ordered the battle from beginning to end. These 
facts General Putnam gave me soon after the battle, and 
also repeated them to me after his Life was printed." [His 
Life, by Colonel Humphrey, Mr. Whitney refers to. 
Colonel Humphrey's "Life of Putnam" was published 
when the General was still alive. It was written at Mount 



selah's third letter. 71 

Vernon, without any communication with Putnam on the 
subject, and without his knowledge. It is not, therefore, 
remarkable that the Colonel should have erred in the 
single matter of commandership, where he assigns to his 
hero everything else that is great and honorable.] 

We have, still further, Major Daniel Jackson's entry 
in his Journal, dated June 16, 1775, where he says, " Gene- 
ral Putnam, with the army, went to entrench on Bunker's 
Hill." And John Boyle, who also kept a diary at that 
time, and entered therein, under date June 16, 1775, 
" General Putnam, with a detachment of about one thousand 
of American forces, went from Cambridge, and began an 
entrenchment on an eminence below Boston." And, most 
reliable evidence, an extract from Riyington's " New 
York Gazette," for 3d of August, 1775, stating that " Put- 
nam, on the evening of the 16th of June, took possession 
of Bunker's Hill, and began an entrenchment." 

Thus it seems to be conclusively proven that the detach- 
ment went on to the liciglits under the command of General 
Putnam, and began there those entrenchments which were 
to serve so good a purpose on the following day. It is 
vouched for by such witnesses and documents as the above, 
all of whom agree in the main point of who commanded, 
and differ only in the simple matter of the numbers com- 
posing the detachment taken on to the field, which, under 
the circumstances, is not to be wondered at. 

When the morn broke upon the heights of Bunter's and 
Breed's Hills, and upon the shipping in the harbor, and the 
town of Boston, what was the amazement of the British at 
seeing those heights covered with earthworks and alive 
with continental troops — all the work of one night, as if 
wrought by the hand of some powerful genii. The British 



72 selah's third letter. 

ships immediately opened their fire upon tlic redoubts, as 
did also batteries lining the wharves in Boston. How 
high must have beat the mingling hopes and fears of those 
brave men, on those imperiled heights, upon whom all- 
powerful Britain was soon to unleash and hound " the dogs 
of war." They had worked almost miracles during the 
season of darkness that had just passed ; but there was 
much left undone, through sheer want of time and men, 
and on the completion of which depended, to a great ex- 
tent, the success of the enterprise. The commanding sum- 
mit of Bunker's Hill, of vital importance, in case of a 
retreat, was not yet fortified, " though Putnam," (says Col. 
Swett, p. 28,) " mortified at the neglect of a position on 
which his success and reputation dejjended, had been inces- 
sant and unwearied in his efforts to have it accomplished ; 
but in vain, as no reinforcements arrived." 

" On seeing the preparations of the enemy for an attack," 
continues Colonel Swett, " General Putnam again has- 
tened to Cambridge for reinforcements, and had to pass 
through a galling, enfilading fire of round, bar, and chain- 
shot, which thundered across the Neck, from the Glasgow 
frigate, in the channel of Charles River, and two floating 
batteries hauled close to the shore." He, on arriving at 
Cambridge, learned from General Ward the orders which 
had been sent to the New Hampshire troops at Medford, 
and immediately returned to his post on the field of battle. 
Tliis New Hampshire regiment, under Colonel Stark, 
arrived on the field between two and three o'clock in the 
afternoon, and " General Putnam {Frotkingham, p. 134,) 
ordered part of them to labor on the works begun on 
Bunker's Hill, and part to the redoubts." 

"Putnam was now joined {Col. Sivdf, p. 31,) by Dr. 



selah's third letter. 73 

Warren, to whom he observed, ' I'm sorry to see you here. 
General Warrkx. I wish you had left the day to us, as I 
advised you. From appearances, we shall have a sharp 
time of it ; but, since you are here, I'll receive your orders 
with pleasure.'" Warren replied, ' I came only as a volun- 
teer ; Iknorv nothing of your dispositions^ and will not in- 
terfere with them. Tell me where I can be most useful ! ' 
Putnam, intent on his safety, directed him to the redoubt, 
observing, ' You will be covered there.' ' Don't think,' 
said Warren, ' I came here to seek a place of safety ; but 
tell me where the onset will be most furious.' Putnam 
again pointed to the redoubt ; ' That,' said he, ' is the 
enemy's object ; Prescott is there, and will do his duty, 
and if it can be defended, the day is ours ; but from long 
experience of the character of the enemy, I think they will 
ultimately succeed, and drive us from the works ; though, 
from the mode of attack they have chosen, we shall be 
able to do them infinite injury ; and we must be prepared 
for a brave and orderly retreat, when we can maintain our 
ground no longer ! ' " 

As soon as the British lines came into full view to the 
Americans, and within musket range, it was with great 
difficulty that Putnam could restrain his men, especially 
the good marksmen, from firing upon them. " He rode 
through the lines," {says Col. Swett, p. 33,) " and ordered 

* " SelaW' would have done well had he explained v:hy the " commauder-in-chief of 
the American troops before the battle " {vide page G7) oflercd to " receive " Wakren's 
" orders with pleasure," as here stated. Was it because the military abilities of this 
Boston physician, a mere novice in military affairs, were superior to his own ; or did he 
suppose General Wakkkx — a Major-General in the Massachusetts militia, without his 
commission — had ranked ^him ? A pretty " commander-in-chie ■ of the^]; American 
troops," in either case, was such au officer.^ H. B. D. 

10 



T4 selah's third letter. 

that no one should fire till the enemy were within eight 
rods of the breastworks ; nor any one then even, until he 
had given the word. ' Powder/ said Putnam, ' was scarce, 
and must not be wasted. They should not fire at the 
enemy till they saw the whites of their eyes, and then fire 
low ; take aim at their waistbands. They were all marks- 
men, and could kill a squirrel at a hundred yards ; reserve 
their fire, and the enemy were all destroyed. Aim at the 
handsome coats ; pick off the commanders.' " 

" Putnam now," {saj/s Col. Stceit,) " with the assistance 
of Captain Ford's company, opened his artillery upon 
them. He had on this day performed every species of 
service, and now turned cannonier, with splendid success, 
and to the highest satisfaction of his countrymen. He 
pointed the cannon himself, the balls took effect on the 
enemy, and one case of cannister made a lane through 
them ! " 

On came the British columns, in close order, with most 
martial appearance and imposing array. On, on they 
came, the glory of war kindling in their eyes, and vengeance 
breathing from their lips, at the " cursed rebels," who had 
thus " dared " to beard the lion in his den. On, on they 
came, until the breastworks were almost gained, and hopes 
of an easy and speedy victory swelled their bosoms. On 
tliey came, till the " whites of their eyes " were seen by 
those firm, dauntless, almost breathless militia men ; and 
then there was a fearful lowering of those " deadly tubes," 
a keen glance along their shining sides — a moment of 
breathless suspense — a deep, full word of command— a 
vivid flash and a sullen roar, as from heaven's artillery — 
V quick successive volleys, each following each more dread- 
ful than the former : and, above all the din of this awful 



selah's third letter. 75 

battery, rose the sliricks and wails of the wounded and 
dying ! Nothing of mortal make could withstand this 
awful tide of fire and death ! They faltered — they wa- 
vered — they broke, and fled adown the hill. Down that 
hill, up whose verdant sides they had but just swept, a 
glorious sight, in their pride and confidence, in their pomp 
of equipage and their glory of strength and invinci- 
bility ! 

It was after this first retreat of the enemy that General 
Ward dispatched re-enforcements from Cambridge to the 
field of strife. But the fire from the British ships, across 
the Neck, over which they would have to pass, was now so 
terrific that, raw recruits as they were, they wavered in 
the attempt. " Putnam," {says Col. Sivefi, p. 35,) " flew to 
the spot to overcome their fears, and hurry them on before 
the enemy returned. He entreated, encouraged and threat- 
ened them ; lashing his horse with the flat of his sword, he 
rode backward and forward across the Neck ; the balls 
threw up clouds of dust around him, and the soldiers were 
perfectly convinced that Jie was invulnerable, but were not 
equally conscious of being so themselves." Some of these 
troops, however, ventured over. It was while on his return 
from the Neck, that General Putnam came upon Colonel 
Gerrish and his regiment — the Colonel Gerrish whom 
General Dearborn, and Mr. Dawson after him, have con. 
verted into such a large sized bug-bear. Colonel Gerrish 
confessed to General Putnam that he was very much 
exhausted, owing to his great corpulency and the fatigues 
of his late march. " General Putnam," (says Frothingliam, 
page 143,) " endeavored to rally these troops. He used 
entreaty and command, and offered to lead them into ac- 
tion, but without effect." They were in a most complete 



76 SELAIl's THIRD LETTER. 

state of insubordination, arising from the condition of 
their commander, and their not having had previous know- 
ledge of the rank of General Putnam, and consequently 
doubting his authority. 

Much confusion prevailed in other sections of the troops' 
arising principally from the lax discipline of the men — the 
insufficient number of officers, many of whom knew little or 
nothing of the duties assigned them — the impromptu nature 
of the whole affair, and the consequent want of that thor- 
ough study of the plan of the battle, and the requisite con- 
forming of means and material to the circumstances ; and, 
sorest want of all, an inadequate supply of ammunition, 
much of which, too, was unfitted for the purposes for which 
it was intended, inasmuch as many of the cartridges for 
the field-pieces were too large. Colonel Swett tells us 
that Putnam, observing that some of the field-pieces had 
ceased their fire, inquired tlie cause, when they gave the 
reason of their inability to load the guns with the cart- 
ridges, they being too large. Upon which " Putnam broke 
open the cartridges, and loaded the guns with a ladle, and 
sighted and fired them several times himself." 

" The artillery companies, under Callender and Grid- 
ley, {says Col Sicetf, pp. 29, 30,) " were just enlisted from 
the infantry, and grossly ignorant of their duty." He goes 
on to say that Gridley drew off his company, with their 
pieces, to the rear ; " and Callender w^as marching off 
over Bunker's Hill, to secure a place for preparing his am- 
munition in safety, when Putnam met him, and was fired 
with indignation at this appearance of a retreat. He 
ordered him instantly to his post ; Callender remon- 
strated ; but Putnam threatened him with instant death if 
he hesitated, and compelled him to return." The above is- 



SELAH S THIRD LETTER. 77 

also verified by a Report made to the Massachusetts Pro- 
vincial Congress, in 1775, in which it is stated that, on the 
day of tlie battle, " Putnam met Captain Callender, of 
the artillery, retreating down the hill ; Putnam ordered 
him ' to stop and go back.' " 

In the meantime, the British had formed anew, at the 
bottom of the hill, and once more were marching up, over 
the bodies of their fallen comrades, into the very face of 
those terrible marksmen. True, they came not, this time, 
with that show of conscious and undoubted strength, and 
that triumphant flash in their eyes ; but on they came, with 
a look of determination — the determination which speaks 
either of death or victory. Again were they met by that 
murderous fire, opening upon them from the whole Ameri- 
can line, and again they wavered, turned and fled. In- 
domitable and unyielding, in their scorn of the idea of 
defeat, as well as their deep desire to mete out revenge 
upon the slayers of their comrades, again they form, again 
return to the fray, and effect a lodgment within the works 
of the Americans. The ammunition of the Americans had 
failed. There was not the means wherewith to pour in 
that awful fire upon the advancing columns for the third 
time. They clubbed their muskets, and with nerves of 
iron and feelings of deep, unutterable despair, dealt blows, 
thick and powerful, upon the invaders of their country 
and their country's rights. But alas ! what are clubbed 
muskets when arrayed against British bayonets ? Nothing. 
There was but one tiling to be done — and that, to 
retreat. 

Even when the Americans were driven from the breast- 
works, and forced to retreat, the British lines were not in 
much better condition. They were entirely exhausted by 



78 selah's third letter, 

-v^' tlieir desperate efforts, under a blazing sun, and were 
dreadfully broken by the well-directed fire of the Ameri- 
cans. To such an extent were their ranks broken and 
confused, that their right and left wings were facing each 
other, with the Americans between ; thus would their fire 
have slain alike friend and foe. While they endeavored to 
form anew, the Americans also collected, and made a brave 
and orderly retreat. At this juncture, " Putnam," {says 
Col. Sivetf,]). 46,) "put spurs to his foaming horse, and 
threw himself between the retreating force and the enemy, 
who were but twelve rods from him. His countrymen 
were in momentary expectation of seeing this compeer of 
the immortal AVarren fall. He entreated them to rally, 
and renew the fight — to finish his works on Bunker's Hill 
— and affain give the enemy battle on that unassailable 
. position, and pledged his honor to restore to them an 
easy victory." 

" During the retreat," {says FrotMngltam, p. 152,) " which, 
for the most part, lay over the brow of Bunker's Hill, 
where was the place of the greatest slaughter, General 
Putnam rode to the rear of the retreating troops, and, re- 
gardless of the balls flying about him, with his sword 
drawn, and still undaunted in his bearing, urged them to 
renew the fight in the unfinished works." " Make a stand 
here," he exclaimed, {Frothingham, p. 152 ; also affidavits 
of Col. Wade, Major Eliliu Lyman, and Anderson lliner,) 
" we can stop them yet. In God's name, form, and give 
them one shot more 1 " " The enemy pressed on them, and 
they were, in turn, compelled to retire. Putnam covered 
their retreat with his Connecticut troops, and others just 
/ arrived ; and, in the rear of the whole, dared the utmost 
fury of the enemy, who pursued with little ardor, but 



SELAH S THIRD LETTER. 79 

poured in their tlnmdering volleys, and showers of balls 
fell like hail around the General. He addressed himself 
to every passion of tlic troops, to persuade them to rally, 
to throw u}) his works on Bunker's Hill, and make a stand 
there ; and threatened them with the eternal disgrace of 
deserting their General ! He took his stand near a field- 
piece, and seemed resolved to brave the foe alone. His 
troops, however, felt it impossible to withstand the over- 
whelming force of the British bayonets; they left him. 
One sergeant alone dared to stand by his General to the 
last. He was shot down ; and tlie enemy's bayonets were 
just upon the General when he retired.'' (FrotJimgham, p. 
152 ; Col. Sicett, p. 47 ; also Affidavits of Gov. Brooh, Col. 
Wade, Judge Grosvenor, Maj. Elihu Lyman, Col. JVehb, 
Anderson Miner, Joshua Yeomans, Simeon Noyes, and many 
others.) 

Thus have I followed up tlie authorities bearing upon 
this subject, from the first planning of the battle at Cam- 
bridge, through the awful strife that followed, and the re- 
treat of the Americans over Charlestown Neck, back to 
their camp at Cambridge. There is no one particular 
point or action, in reference to the whole affair, in which 
we do not find Putnam participating, and even leading the 
way. History has mingled his name with the relation of 
every salient point in that fearful conflict. In addition to 
the mass of authorities already given, we find Judge Gros- 
venor stating that " Putnam ordered Knowlton to his 
position ;" Judge Winthrop's statement, in an article in 
the " North American Review," for July, 1818, that he 
" saw Putnam here [Breed's Hill] just previous to the first 
attack ;" and Simeon Noyes, taking oath, in an affidavit 
in 1825, that " Putnam rode up to the company he was in,' 



80 selah's third letter. 

and said : ' Draw off 3^oiir troops here,' pointing to the 
rail-fence, ' for the enemy's flanking us fast.' " 

We have, too, from a letter written by Colonel Samuel 
Ward, of Rhode Island, under date 20th of June, 1775, 
the statement that " Putnam had a sore battle on Satur- 
day." Ethan Clark writes to Colonel Ward, " We hear 
that Putnam is defeated, and Dr. Warren slain." Dr. 
Aaron Dexter, in a statement written out from memo- 
randa, made by himself at the time, and by him preserved, 
says, " The day after the battle, I was at General Ward's 
quarters, and was informed by the officers there that Gene- 
ral Putnam had command of all the troops which were 
sent down over night, and which might be ordered there 
the next day." Captain Trevett, senior captain of artil- 
lery, acting under Major Gridley, who had chief command 
of the artillery on that day, [Col. Sicett, i>. 21,) inquired 
officially of the Major " who had command of the troops ? " 
and was informed by him that " General Putnam had ;" 
upon which Captain Trevett remarked, " Then there is 
nothing to fear," and immediately applied to Putnam for 
orders, and received them. And William Williams, the 
son-in law of Governor Trumbull, and a member of the 
Continental Congress at Philadelphia, in a letter addressed 
to that body, under date " Lebanon, Connecticut, June 20th, 
1775, 10 o'clock at night," says, " I receive it that General 
Putnam commanded our troops ; perhaps not in chief."* 

I have oftentimes wondered how any man can be so per- 
fectly devoid of all common reasoning as to accept the 
blind and scandalous statements of General Dearborn, 

* As General PrxxAM ivas the commander of " oia- " — the Connecticut — 
" trooxii^,'' Mr. Williams" supposition was nearer correct than " Selau's " assertion ; 
but why my ojiponent added the last paragraph , which so pointedly discredits his theory 
respecting the chief command, is beyond my comprehension. H. B. D. 



SELAII'S THIRD LETTER. 81 

when there is lying in every historical collection so much 
that gives his statements such a strong coloring of untruth. 
I can go to many, many places to find evidence, in the 
original, of all that has been claimed in Putnam's favor, 
but know not where (aside from Dearborn's assertions, 
and their reproduction by others, who have either igno- 
rantly or maliciously accepted them as truth,) I could go 
to procure evidence of "vileness," "cowardice," "insuf- 
ficiency, or criminality," in that hero. 

Among all the evidences of the part taken by Putnam in 
the Bunker's Hill battle, no insignificant one may be found 
in a colored portrait, on paper, of the General, published 
by " C. Shepherd, Sept., 1775," only three months after the 
battle, which bears on its margin the following words : 
" Israel Putnam, Esq., Major-General of the Connecticut 
forces, and commander-in-chief at the engagement on Bunk- 
er's Hill, near Boston, 17th of June, 1775." This picture 
is in this city, and has been seen by many of our citizens. 

Dr. James Thatcher, in his " Military Journal," says 
that " on the American side. Generals Putnam, Warren, 
Pomeroy, and Colonel Prescott, were emphatically the 
heroes of the da}^, and their unexampled efi^orts were 
crowned with glory." In this extract it will be seen that 
Thatcher places the name of Putnam first, thus seeming 
t^ give liim precedence also in command. 

We even have the evidence and testimony of the British 
in reference to this matter, and all of which goes to estab- 
lish Putnam's claims to the honor, not only of commander- 
ship, but of having taken a brave and daring part in the 
strife. From a letter written by a British officer, in the 
army in Boston, to a friend in England, dated June 25th, 

11 



82 selah's third letter. 

] 775, and which may be found in the " American Archives," 
vol. II., p. 1093, we quote the two following passages : 
"After the skirmish of the 17th, we even commended the 
troops oi^ Putnam, who fought so gallantly, jjro aris etfocis.^' 
And again, " So very secret was the late action conducted, 
that Generals Clinton and Burgoyne knew not of it till 
the morning ; though the town did in general, and Putnam 
in particular." Colonel Abercrombie, who commanded 
the British grenadiers, was killed in the engagement. " He 
had been a personal friend and a warm one," {says Col. 
Swett, p. 42,) " to General Putnam in bygone days." And, 
continues Swett, " So dear was Putnam to him as a soldier, 
patriot and friend, that, dying, he remembered him, and 
enjoined it on his countrymen, who surrounded him, ' If 
you take General Putnam alive, don't hang him ; for he is 
a brave fellow ! ' " 

It will be noticed that I have made frequent reference to 
Colonel Swett's work, the " Account of the Bunker's Hill 
Battle." I have taken him to be as good and impartial 
authority in this case as can be obtained, for several 
reasons. Colonel Swett was in the staff of Governor 
Brooks, of Massachusetts, and enjoyed his friendship to an 
extraordinary degree. Consequently he received the Go- 
vernor's hearty co-operation and aid in the compilation of 
his work. The battle was probably never understood by 
any one better than by Governor Brooks. " He was with 
the troops on the battle-field," (.sa?/.s Col. Sivett) " from the 
first to the last ; and certainly enjoyed an extraordinary 
opportunitj of gathering information, which, joined to a 
deep desire to inquire at the time, and ever after, into the 
occurrences, allowed of no chance for aught of importance 
to escape him." Colonel Swett, in his work, gives some 



selah's third letter. 83 

sixty affidavits, taken before magistrates and .uaers, all V 
conferring on Putnam the honor of commanding the troops 
in the battle, and also of taking a brave and nolile part 
throughout the contest. These affidavits "vvere taken, many 
of them, at the instance of Colonel Swett, and may all of 
them he relied on. Frothingham says of them that they 
" are statements chiefly taken by Colonel Swett, whose 
high sense of honor is a guaranty of their fidelity ! " 

Depositions were taken (which depositions are preserved) 
from the iollowing individuals, all of whom were me:i in 
high standing for truth, and whose credibility was never 
impeached — men, too, who had ample means of knowing 
what they swore to, inasmuch as they all were either on 
or near the battle-field on the day of the action. Among 
these men were Josiah Cleveland, of Canterbury, Con- 
necticut, in Putnam's regiment ; Joshua Yeomans, of Nor- 
wich, also in Putnam's regiment ; Governor Brooks, of 
Massachusetts, in the action ; Judge Grosvenor, of Pom- 
fret, Connecticut, in the action ; Abner Allen, of West- 
ern, in the action ; Josiah Hill, of Tyringham, in Putnam's 
regiment ; the Rev. Army Chaplain ; Thomas Cooke, Esq., 
member of the Massachusetts Congress, and a signer of 
" Sivord in hand money f^ Reuben Kemp, of Brooklyn, Con- 
necticut, one of Colonel Stark's men ; Isaac Bassett, of 
Killingly, in Putnam's regiment ; Ebenezer Bean, of Con- 
way, in Stark's regiment ; Judge Advocate Tudor ; Pre- 
sident Adams, Sen. ; Captain John Barker, of Pomfret, 
Connecticut, in Reed's New Hampshire regiment ; Major 
Elihu Lyman, of Greenfield, a lieutenant in the battle; 
Anderson Miner, in Major Lyman's company ; General 
Keys, for many years Adjutant General of Connecticut, 
and who served in the battle, as a first lieutenant in Put- 



84 selah's third letter, 

nam's regiment ; Abiel Bugbee, of Pomfret, Connecticut, 
in Putxam's regiment ; John Dexter, of Pomfret, Ver- 
mont, in Putnam's regiment ; Alexander Davidson, of 
Edgecombe, in Ford's company ; Colonel Ebenezer Ban- 
croft, Esq. , of Tyngsborougli, a captain in Bridge's regi- 
ment ; Captain James Clark, who commanded one hun- 
dred men in Putnam's regiment ; Major John Burnham, 
of Londonderr}', a lieutenant in Little's regiment ; Colo- 
nel Putnam, a son of the General, who was in his father's 
regiment ; General Peirce, of Hillsborough, in Ford's 
company ; Richard Gilchrist, of Dublin, in Stark's regi- 
ment ; Benjamin Mann, a captain in Reed's regiment ; 
Israel Hunt, of Dunstable, in Bridge's regiment ; Joseph 
Trask, of Billerica, in Gardner's regiment ; Francis 
Davidson, of Londonderry, in Ford's company ; Job Spaf- 
FORD, of Berlin, a sergeant in General Ward's regiment ; 
Jesse Smith, of Salem, a private in the action ; A. Dicker- 
son, of Amherst, in Woodbridge's regiment ; William 
French, of Dunstable, a private, and one of those engaged 
in throwing up the redoubts ; Russell Dewey, of West- 
field, a private in the action ; Benjamin Bullard, of Hop- 
kinton, a captain in Brewer's regiment ; Enos Lake, of 
Ringe, in Reed's regiment ; Wm. Low, of Gloucester, in 
the action ; Philip Bagley, in Frye's regiment, and, after 
the war, a deputy-sheriff in the city of Newburyport for 
nearly thirty years ; Thomas Davis, of Holden, in the 
action ; John Holden, of Leicester, in Doolittle's regi- 
ment ; Samuel Jones, of Sudbury, in Doolittle's regi- 
ment ; Nathaniel Rice, of East Sudbury, in the action ; 
Simeon Noyes, of Salem, in Little's regiment ; Wm. 
Harden, of Portsmouth, in Gerrish's regiment ; Amos 
Foster, of Tewksbury, in the action ; Colonel Wade, of 



selah's third letter. 85 

Ipswich, a captain in Little's regiment, and afterwards 
treasurer of Essex County, Massachusetts ; Johx Stevens, 
of Andover, in Frye's regiment; George Leach, of Salem, 
in Whitcomb's regiment ; David Brewer, of Framingham, 
in the action ; Elijah Jourdan, of Bucksfield, in the ac- 
tion ; Colonel J. Page, of Atkinson, in the action ; Aaron 
Smith, of Shrewsbury, in the action ; Ezra Eunnels, of 
Middleborough, in Gridley's artillery company ; Colonel 
Joseph Whittemore, of Newburyport, a lieutenant in 
Little's regiment ; Philip Johxson, Esq., of Newbury- 
port, in Little's regiment ; Samuel Bassett, in Stark's 
regiment ; Deacon Millar, of Charlestown, in Gardner's 
regiment ; Enoch Baldwin, of Milton, in Gardner's regi- 
ment ; Judge WiNTHROP, in the action ; John Hopkins, of 
Templeton, in Gardner's regiment ; Mr. Thompson, of 
Charlestown, in Gardner's regiment ; Wm. Dickson, of 
Charlestown, in Gardner's regiment ; Major Daniel 
Jackson, of Xewton, in Foster's artillery company; Cap- 
tain Francis Greene, of Boston, a sergeant in Foster's 
company, and, after the war, one of the assessors of the 
city of Boston. 

These depositions were taken, some before Judges of the 
Supreme Court; some before " General Sullivan, and other 
Directors of the Bunker's Hill Monument Association, as- 
sisted by Judge Thatcher and others ;" some before Colo- 
nel Samuel Swett ; some before Adjutant-General Sum- 
ner ; and others before Wm. Stevenson, Esq., of Canter- 
bury, Connecticut ; B. Merrill, Esq , of Salem ; Samuel 
F. Brown, Esq.. of Bucksfield ; John Vose, Esq., of At- 
kinson ; S. D. Ward, Esq., of Shrewsbury ; Wilkes Wood, 
Esq., of Middleborough ; Hon. Ebenezer Moseley, of 
Newburyport ; and other highly respectable magistrates. 



86 selah's third letter. 

In their depositions they all agree that Putnam was on 
Bunker's and Breed's Hills, both on the night of the 16th 
and during the day of the 17th of June, 1775. They all 
agree, too, that he there performed the duties devolving 
upon a commander ; and that they, as well as their com- 
rades in arms, " always considered him their commander," 
on that day. They all agree as to his conduct on the 
battle-field on that occasion ; and, in their affidavits, speak 
with a confidence and freedom that proclaims for them a 
thorough knowledge of what they speak of, and an honesty 
of purpose in their statements. They, in many cases, use 
words of the highest import in reference to the subject in 
hand ; and I cannot deny myself the pleasure of giving a 
few quotations from these affidavits. 

Governor Brooks testifies to Putnam's daring and reck- 
less bravery, when, with a sergeant only, he stood by the 
guns till the sergeant was shot down, and the British bay- 
onets nearly pressed his own bosom ere he retreated. 
Judge Grosvenor says that, " under the immediate super- 
intendence of General Putnam, ground was broken and a 
redoubt was formed ;" that " the General directed, princi- 
pally, the operations of the succeeding day ; " and that 
" he inspired confidence hy Ms exampley Mr. Allen says 
that " he saw Putnam on horseback, urging the men to 
fight, with great earnestness. Mr. Hill says, " I know 
that General Putnam was in the battle, took part in the 
engagement, and was as much exposed as any one in the 
battle." Mr. Cooke, a member of the Massachusetts Con- 
gress, says that Putnam " did all that man could do to get 
on the men to Breed's Hill ; he appeared firm, resolute, 
and tlioughtless of personal danger ; his praise was in the 
mouth of every one at that time ; he never heard a disre- 



selah's third letter. 87 

spcdful icord against Mm ! " Mr. Kemp says, " General 
Putnam seemed to have the ordering- of things." Mr. Bas- 
SETT savs, " I saw General Putnam in the hottest of the 
fight, calling on the men to stand their ground." Judge 
Advocate Tudor, who presided at the court martial that 
followed the battle, says, '' In the inquiry which those 
trials occasioned, / never heard an inshmaiion against the 
conduct of General Putnam ! " President Adams, Senior, 
says, '■ This I do say, without reserve, I never heard the 
least insinuation of dissatisfaction ivith the character of Gene- 
ral Putnam during his ivhole life ! " Major Elihu Lyman 
says, " General Putnam was present directing the retreat, 
riding backward and forward hetween lis and the British, 
and appeared cool and deliberate, frequently speaking to 
the men." Colonel Bancroft, who served with Putnam 
in the old French war, says, " he had seen him often in 
the midst of danger ; his courage could not be doubted, 
nor his character impeached." And, in reference to the 
Bunker's Hill affair, where he assisted in throwing up the 
redoubts, he says " The lines were marked out by Put- 
nam." Mr. Miner " saw General Putnam riding through 
the American ranks, amidst showers of balls, undaunted, 
with his sword drawn, exhorting the troops, ' in the name 
of God,' to form and give the British one shot more, and 
then they might retreat." Mr. Burnham says that Put- 
nam " appeared busily engaged in giving directions to the 
troops as they came up," and that the company to which 
lie belonged received their orders from Putnam. Mr. 
Yeomans statcc, that he " was well acquainted with Gene- 
ral Putnam ; saw a great deal of him in the action, en- 
couraging the men. He saw him ride along the whole 
line, and crying out, ' stick to your posts, men, and do 



88 selah's third letter. 

your duty ;' he was greatly exposed." Mr. Bagley " saw 
General Putnam pass up and down the line on horseback, 
during the battle, encouraging the soldiers. The shot 
were very thick where he was ; he had a very calm, en- 
couraging look. Knew him because I bad seen him at 
Cambridge." Mr. Jones " saw General Putnam, and spoke 
with him ; he encouraged us very much, and rode up and 
down behind us ; his horse was all of a lather, and the 
battle was going on very hotly at the time." Colonel 
Wade says of Putnam, " He was the only officer I saw 
on horseback. He seemed busily engaged in bringing on 
troops." Mr. Jourdan says, " I perfectly well remember 
that General Putnam was in the entrenchment very fre- 
quently during the engagement, giving orders as com- 
mander-in-chief." Mr. Smith says of Putnam, " He ap- 
peared to me to have, and I always understood he had, the 
command of the troops." Mr. Johnson states that, "just 
before the action began, he saw General Putnam on horse, 
back, very near him, and distinctly heard him say, ' Men, 
you know you are all marksmen — you can take a squirrel 
from the tallest tree. Don't fire till you see the whites of 
their eyes.' " He again says that, " immediately after the 
first retreat of the British, General Putnam rode up and 
said, ' Men, you have done well, but next time you will do 
better ; aim at the officers.' " Colonel Whitmore says that 
" on the retreat, he was wounded in the thigh ; he soon 
after saw General Putnam ; and well knowing the Gene- 
ral, and the General knowing him, he said, ' General, shan't 
we rally again ?' to which Putnam replied, ' Yes, as soon as 
we can ; arc you wounded ? ' " Mr. Rice says that ho 
" saw Putnam riding round, encouraging the people to the 
utmost, both before the battle and durins: the battle." The 



selah's third letter. 89 

Rev. Army Chaplain, who makes a statement of facts, 
under oath, in reference to the gallant conduct of Putnam 
on the field of 17th of June, 1775, closes his deposition by 
stating that " he was the intimate friend of Colonel Pres- 
COTT and Lieutenant-Colonel Robinson, and/rom the mouths 
of these heroes he had this account J^ 

What a mass of testimony is here presented. Testi- 
mony, too, that may be relied on, coming, as it does, from 
men of the greatest respectability, and some of them in 
higli stations in life, and all making their statements under 
an oath, " to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth." And what have General Putnam's detrac- 
tors ever brought forward to rebut this mass of authority ? 
Why, of all the evidence adduced by them at various times, 
and their affidavits, taken from persons sworn, as they 
claim, only one makes the assertion, bold and bare-faced, 
that General Putnam was not on the field, nor took any 
part in the battle ; and he, in the intricate mazes of liis 
own fabricated testimony, blunders and stumbles in a man- 
ner most pitiful, and at the same time most amusing. 

In regard to the difficulty between Colonel Prescott 
and General Putnam, out of which Mr. Dawson has at- 
tempted to make a great deal of capital, I have searched 
the authorities in vain to find evidence of a quca^r el hetween 
them. The only occurrence on which any one might find 
ground to build such a supposition, is in the simple fact 
that " General Putnam, (Frothingham, p. 129,) who was on 
his way to the heights when Major Brooks was going to 
Cambridge, rode on horseback to the redoubt, and told 
Colonel Prescott (G^e?ie7'a?^ea^7i'sil/emoiVs, p. 19,) that the 
entrenching tools must be sent off, or they would be lost ; 

12 



90 selah's third letter. 

to which the Colonel replied, that, if he sent any of the 
men away with the tools, not one of them would return : to 
tliis the General answered. ' They shall every man return !' 
A large part of these tools were carried no farther than 
Bunker's Hill, where, by General Putnam's order, the men 
began to throw up a breastwork. Most of them fell into 
the hands of the enemy." How any one can twist the 
above conversation into a quarrel, I cannot conceive. The 
above facts are not only vouched for by the two eminent 
authorities mentioned in parenthesis, but also by a state- 
ment of Mr. Joseph Pearce, in 1818, and by a MS. letter 
by Colonel Ebenezer Bancroft, written December 7th, 
1824. 

General Dearborn was the first to make the statement 
— which Mr. Dawson has copied into his published work 
almost verbatim — that Colonel Prescott, at a dinner given 
by Governor Bowdoin, of Massachusetts, denounced Gene- 
ral Putnam as " a self-conceited, inefficient man, and de- 
serving to be shot." It is too late now to question whether 
Prescott ever made use of these words, as in fact it was, 
even at the time that Dearborn published his work — both 
Putnam and Prescott then being in their graves. But it 
has most generally been regarded, by sober-thinking, sen- 
sible men, as a misconception — either intentional or other- 
^yige — of Colonel Prescott's true words and their mean- 
ing. Who can for a moment reconcile any such occurrence 
with the well-known fact that Prescott and Putnam ever 
stood on the most friendly terms, the one with the other ? 
How little weight may be attached to General Dearborn's 
statements, in regard to the affairs of the Bunker's Hill 
battle, may be conceived, when it is known that the posi- 
tion held by himself in the battle was that of a platoon 



SELAH S THIRD LETTER. 91 

officer, commanding some twenty to thirty men, and was 
engaged, like them, in loading and discharging his musket. 
Any one may readily perceive that a man in that position 
could not possibly be familiar with the actions and conduct 
of a commanding officer, nor of anything that was trans- 
piring in another quarter of the field from that in which 
he was posted. Yet he had the cool effrontery to write a 
work, purporting to be a correct mirror of that battle, and 
in it condemns and berates General Putnam in the most 
unjust and unkind manner, and has— oh! when will won- 
ders cease ? — won over adherents and disciples to his here- 
sies, among whom Mr. Dawson numbers himself. 

When the court martial was held, after the battle, before 
which the cases of Colonel Gerrish, Captain Callender, 
Colonel ScAMMANS, Lieutenant Woodward, Major Grid- 
ley, and other officers, were tried on a charge of coward- 
ice, a committee was appointed by Congress to inquire 
into the facts of the case. This committee reported that 
" They had made inquiry of General Putnam, and other 
officers, ivJio icere in the hottest of the battle, and that Gene- 
ral Putnam charged Captain Callender and another 
artillery officer with infamous cowardice — one of the prin- 
cipal causes of the defeat— and informed them that he 
would quit the service if these officers were not made an 
example of, and that one of them ought to be shot." How 
very like is the wording of the last sentence of this report 
of the committee of Congress to that sentence of condem- 
nation which Dearborn has made Colonel Prescott utter 
against the character of General Putnam ; and how very 
ikely is it, too, that the Colonel was referring to the same 
report of the committee, and using their language, with its 
same purport, which General Dearborn, with eager pen, 



92 SELAHS THIKD LETTER. 

turned into a charge by the Colonel against Putnam him- 
self. 

Colonel ScAMMANS, soon after the trial, published a re- 
port in a newspaper, of the court martial held on himself, 
in which he stated that General Putnam was not engaged 
in the battle at all. And yet, it appears in evidence, dur- 
ing the trial, from witnesses under oath, that this very 
Colonel Scammans, while the battle was going on, sent Jiis 
sergeant to General Putnam to see if lie (Scammans) ivas 
ivanted ! and this very sergeant was in the court during 
the trial, and took oath that such tvas the case. 

In a former letter by Mr. Dawson, he attempts to throw 
over the connections of Colonel Small and Major Mon- 
CRIEF (both of the royal army) and General Putnam the 
coloring of duplicity and treason on the General's part ; 
and goes so far as to say that, had not this connection been 
watched, and its results prevented. General Putnam would 
have proved another traitor Arnold ! When the facts of 
this connection are thoroughly known, the deep injustice 
of this charge by Mr. Dawson will be seen and duly ap- 
preciated. Colonel Small was intimately acquainted with 
General Putnam previous to the Battle of Bunker's Hill, 
having served with him during the war in Canada, from 
1756 to 1763. Colonel John Trumbull, the painter, and 
a son of Governor Trumbull, of this State, while painting 
a picture of the battle of Bunker's Hill, during a residence 
in London, in the summer of 1786, was visited at his studio 
one day by Colonel Small. The Colonel remarked to the 
painter, looking at the picture, " I don't like the situation 
in which you have placed my old friend, Putnam ; you 
have not done him justice. I wish you would alter that 
part of your picture, and introduce a circumstance which 



selah's third letter. 93 

actually happened, and which I can never forget. When 
the British troops advanced, the second time, to the attack 
of the redoubt, I, with the other officers, was in front of 
the line, to encourage the men ; wc had advanced very 
near the works, undisturbed, when an irregular fire, like a 
feii-de-joie, was poured in upon us ; it was cruelly fatal. 
The troops fell back ; and, when I looked to the right and 
left, I saw not one officer standing. I glanced my eye to 
the enemy, and saw several young men leveling their 
pieces at me ; I knew their excellence as marksmen, and 
considered myself gone. At that moment my old friend, 
Putnam, rushed forward, and, striking up the muzzles of 
their pieces with his sword, cried out, ' For God's sake, my 
lads, don't fire at that man ; I love him as I do my brother.' 
We were so near each other that I heard his words dis- 
tinctly. He was obeyed ; I bowed, thanked him, and 
walked away unmolested." Colonel John Trumbull says 
of Colonel Small that " he had the character of an honor- 
able, upright man, and could have no conceivable motive 
for deviating from the truth, in relating the circumstances 
to me. I therefore believe them true ! " The above is also 
vouched for by Colonel Daniel Putnam, who states that 
" his father related the same circumstance to him, soon 
after the battle ; and that there was also an interview be- 
tween Colonel Small and General Putnam, on the lines, 
between Prospect Hill and Bunker's Hill, not long after 
the action, solicited by the Colonel, for the purpose of re- 
newing their old acquaintance, and of tendering his thanks 
to the General for preserving his life." 

Colonel SwETT also, in speaking of this aff'air, in his 
work, page 39, says, that when the muskets were leveled 
at the Colonel, and Putnam appeared, " each recognized in 



V 



94 selah's third letter. 

the other an old friend and fellow-soldier ; the tie was 
sacred : Putnam threw up the deadly muskets with his 
sword, and arrested his fate. He begged his men to spare 
that officer, as dear to him as a brother. The General's 
humane and chivalrous generosity excited in them new ad- 
miration, and his friend retired unhurt." 

In regard to Major Moncrief, and his connections with 
Putnam, I find a relation of the whole affair in Frothing- 
ham^s work, pages 111 and 112, as follows : " On the 6th 
of June, an exchange of prisoners took place. * Dr. War- 
ren {Essex Gazette of that date) and Brigadier- General 
Putnam, in a phaeton,' together with other officers of the 
American army, and the prisoners, the whole escorted by 
the Wether sfield company, Captain Chester, entered the 
town of Charlestown, and marched to the ferry, when, 
upon a signal being given. Major Moncrief landed from 
the Lively, in order to receive the prisoners, and see his 
old friend. General Putnam. Their meeting was truly 
cordial and affectionate. The wounded privates were soon 
sent on board the Lively ; but Major Moncrief and the 
other officers returned with General Putnam and Dr. 
Warren to the house of Dr. Foster, where an entertain- 
ment was provided for them." At three o'clock, the ex- 
change of prisoners took place ; and, between five and six 
o'clock. Major Moncrief and General Putnam parted com- 
pany, and returned to their respective camps. " The whole 
was conducted," {says Frotliingliam) " ivith the utmost de- 
cency and good humor ! " 

Thus are two instances of a renewal of old acquaintance, 
and the tendering of brotherly sympathy and courtesy 
in a " truly cordial and affectionate " manner, twisted by 
Mr. Dawson into acts of treason ; and General PutnaM; 



SELAHS THIRD LETTER. 95 

the noble old hero, who, in the midsC of hostilities and 
bloodshed, could not altogether forget the comrades of 
other days, and could not stifle all of his feelings of bro- 
therly friendship, nor fail to pay it homage, even on the 
battle-field, must be branded with the charge of being a 
second traitor Arnold ! It is thus that General Putnam's 
detractors have ever proceeded : turning his acts of cour- 
age into acts of cowardice ; his sympathy and tenderness 
into evidences of treason ; his great, and almost herculean, 
efforts and energies into sluggishness and lax energy ; and 
his well-deserved fame into disgrace and ignominy ! 

In Mr. Dawson's letter, he makes reference to letters 
written, as he claims, by General Washington, wherein 
that General censures Putnam, and speaks disparagingly 
of him as a military ofl&cer. Of this I know not what to 
think. I cannot take oath that General Washington did 
not write such letters, nor can I bring myself to believe 
that he used deceit and prevarication in the premises. 
But it is withal an undeniable fact that there is a letter 
now in existence, in General Washington's own hand- 
writing, dated January 30, 1776, in which he says, " Gene- 
ral Putnam is a valuable man, and a fine executive officer ! " 
And General Washington also wrote General Putnam a 
very affectionate letter, after the close of hostilities, and, 
therefore, at a time when Washington would have a cor- 
rect opinion of Putnam, if ever, gathered from a full know- 
ledge of his whole actions, throughout the war. This let- 
ter is dated June, 1783, and reads as follows : " Dear Sir — 
Your favor of the 20th of May, I received with much 
pleasure ; for I can assure you that among the many 
worthy and meritorious officers with whom I have had the 
happiness to be connected in service through the course of 



96 selah's third letter. 

this war, and from whose cheerful assistance in the various 
and trying vicissitudes of a complicated contest, the name 
of a Putnam is not forgotten ; nor tvill it he, hut tvith that 
stroke of time which shall obliterate from my mind the re- 
membrance of all those toils and fatigues through which 
we have struggled, for the preservation and establish- 
ment of the rights, liberties, and independence of our 
country ! " 

Such are the sentiments of General Washington at tlie 
close of the Avar — a time when, if ever, he should be per 
fectly conversant with all the actions of Putnam, and 
when he could draw a correct, unbiased opinion of him. 
We have also a letter from Joseph Reed, Washington's 
private secretary at the time of the siege of Boston, in 
which he writes to Washington, under date March 15, 
177G, in reference to the contemplated siege, and uses the 
following words : " I supposed Old Put was to command 
the detachment intended for Boston, on the 5th instant, as 
I do not know any officer but himself ivho could have heen 
depended on. for so hazardous a service ! " This letter may 
be found in " Reed's Life," vol. II., p. 172. Says Froth- 
INGHAM, " No higher military testimony than this can be 
adduced ; for Reed was a soldier, and as capable of judg- 
ing as any* person in the army ! " 

I might go on, and fill the columns of this paper, for 
days yet, with such evidences of General Putnam's . great 
gallantry and courage, combined with rare abilities and 
military tact, and an ever-burning zeal and ardor for the 
cause of American liberty ; but it may not be. I feel that 
I have already overstepped the usual bounds of newspaper 
communications, and must bring this article to a close. 
But I cannot, in conclusion, refrain from giving an extract 



selah's third letter. 97 

from the coliiinns of the Connedicut Couranf, wherein (in 
an article published soon after tlie battle of Bunker's Hill, 
in 1775) is clearly shown the popular feeling in regard to 
General Putnam in those " days that tried men's souls." 
The extract reads as follows : " In this list of heroes, it is 
needless to expatiate on the character and bravery of 
Major-General Putnam, whose capacity to form and exe- 
cute great designs is known through Europe, and whose 
undaunted courage and martial abilities strike terror 
through all the hosts of INIidianites, and have raised him 
to an incredible height in the esteem and friendship of his 
American brethren ; it is sufficient to say, that he seems to 
be inspired by God Almiglity with a military genius, and 
formed to work wonders in the sight of those micircum- 
cised Philistines, at Boston and Bunker's Hill, who attempt 
to ravage this country, and defy the armies of the living 
God ! "^ 

I have given these facts — gleaned from many and reliable 
sources — to the public, that people may not fall into Mr. 
Dawson's way of thinking, in regard to General Putnam's 
character and services, without hearing both sides of the 
subject. If sound evidence, drawn from pure and unques- 
tionable sources, is the thing needed to set at rest, for ever, 
General Putnam's detractors, then surely my article has 
not been written in vain, and will find a ready response in 
the hearts of the people, who have ever loved to revere 
" the name of a Putnam ! " I sincerely hope Mr. Dawson 
will relieve himself of that passion which he has shown in 
his writings, and Avhich, to use the mildest expression, cer- 
tainly savors strongly of prejudice — and that in defiance 
of al] historical facts — and come over to the ranks of the 
13 



98 selah's third letter. 

" true defenders of the faith." I am certain he will feel 
better himself—feel as if the hands of the people, the hearts 
of the people, the " vox populi'' were with him, and not 
against him, in his labors as a historian. 
I am, sincerely, 

Your humble servant, 

" SELAH." 



H. B. DAWSON'S THIRD LETTER. 



[From the "Hartford Daily Post," August 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, 1859.*] 



White Plains, N. Y., May 19, 1859. 
To the Editor of the Hartford Daily Post : 

Mr. Editor : Your kind intentions, in attempting to 
fiirnisli me witli a copy of " Selah's" last letter, having 
been frustrated by some sympathizing friend and follower 
of General Putxam, I have been unable, until last night, to 
find even a portion of that extended production which ap- 
peared between April 20th and April 25tli, and, in conse- 
quence of that mishap, I have been compelled to defer 
making any answer to it until this late date. 

With your permission, Mr. Editor, I propose to notice 
some of the peculiarities of this elaborate performance — 
running through six numbers of the Daily Post — not with 
any liopcs of convincing " Selah/' or his coadjutor, who 
have produced it, of their error ; but for the purpose of 
showing, to " the mass of the people of Connecticut," who 

* Dawson vs. Selah. — We shall to-morrow commence the publication of Henry B. 
Dawson's reply to " Selah, '^ relative to the life and services of General Pi'tnam. 
Owing to its length, we have been obliged to delay its appearance, from time to time, to 
make room fc)r other, and to iis^more interesting matter. In justice to Jlr. Dawson, we 
would state, that his reply has been awaiting publication ever since the first of May. 
Some important matter has been added to it of subsequent date, however — Hartford 
Daily Poi>t, August Isf, 1S59. 



100 Dawson's third letter. 

they arc who have impudently assumed to themselves the 
honor of vindicating " the honor of Connecticut ; " and of 
exposing, before an outraged people, the manner in which 
they have discharged that self-imposed, but important 
duty. 

Before proceeding to that duty, however, I may be per- 
mitted to congratulate Connecticut on the good sense 
which " Selah " has displayed, first, in surrendering, with- 
out a struggle, as he had previously done in respect to 
Putnam's birth-place, and other fictions, six out of seven 
of the positions he had taken in his second letter ; and, 
SECONDLY, in securing the assistance of so able and so 
nimble an auxiliary as he whose handiwork, in such marked 
contrast to his own, is so apparent in the extended letter 
which is now before me. With such a " Champion " as 
this, in the person of the squire, added to the profound 
skill, the high-toned honor, the chivalrous bearing, and the 
untiring love of enterprise which mark the character of the 
Might, " the honor of Connecticut," one would suppose, 
must now, if ever, be perfectly secure ; and the good name 
of Putnam, in such a Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, must, 
at last, have found an appropriate, if not an irresistible 
protection. 

In that portion of the letter which has been contributed 
by my old friend, " Selah,^' I find, for a wonder, nothing 
which is new. He has evidently desired to fall back on 
the laurels which he had previously gained ; and, as a 
veteran of two campaigns, and in humble imitation of his 
great exemplar, Putnam, he now leaves to his subordinate 
the labor of fighting the battle, while he holds himself in 
readiness either to join in the retreat or to claim the 
honors, as circumstances may warrant. 



Dawson's third letter. 101 

As I have said already, I find, in the first part of the let- 
ter, nothing which is new. The same strain of personal 
abuse ; the same malignant perversion of language and of 
facts ; the same deliberate falsification of the record ; the 
same sneaking inuendoes, which, from the beginning, have 
marked " Selah^s " course, are conspicuous in the beginning 
of this letter, and tell at once the story of its origin and 
the character of its author. It betrays the workmanship 
of him who manufactured " town records " and " opinions 
of the oldest inhabitants " to prove that Putnam was born 
in Pomfret, Connecticut ; of him who, from a reference to 
the gallantry of Knowlton's command in the action near 
Bunker's Hill, forged a charge that I had asserted they 
" skulked behind rail-fences," to dodge the bullets ; of him 
who paraded the authorities which I had cited on one sub- 
ject, as my witnesses on other subjects in which I had never 
examined them. With that peculiar kind of assurance 
which none but the most unprincipled ever disi^lay in public, 
he attempts, also, by inuendo, to invalidate the authorities 
by which I have met and exposed his falsehoods— sneering 
at what he pleases to term my " budget of private letters," 
" written, perhaps, by some one, and, perhaps, at some time, 
now to be found, perhaps, somewhere." I need only say, 
in answer to this elegant sentence, that I have cited no 
"private letters ;" that the names of the writers of nearly 
all of them, the dates when, and the places where they 
were written, were all cited in full — the space which would 
have been necessary to print the entire documents forbid- 
ding any more extended reference to them. As " Selah's'^ 
faithful squire can tell him, if that is necessary, they have 
all been published, in such a form that no court in Con- 
necticut can, legally, exclude tliem, should they be offered 



102 Dawson's third letter. 

in evidence ; besides wliich, as an additional proof of 
" SelaWs " duplicity, I have the most indisputable evidence 
that authentic copies of these identical letters were before 
him while he was writing this very communication. 

In unison with this, also, is the blustering offer of ten 
dollars, which " Selah " makes, in behalf of the Secretary 
of State, for " a duly authenticated copy of the letter of 
Governor Trumbull, of Connecticut, to the Baron Van der 
C APELLAN, in which the former informs the latter that Gene- 
ral Putnam did not command at Bunker's Hill ;" and the as- 
surance that " the money will be forthcoming." I have 
not referred to any such letter ; and if I had done so, the 
assurance of " Selah " that ten dollars would be given for 
" a duly authenticated copy," would furnish but a poor 
guarantee that his draft would be honored. I cited a let- 
ter from Governor Jonathan Trumbull, dated " Lebanon, 
August 31, 1779," and addressed to " Baron J. D. Van der 
Capellan, Seigneur du Pol, Mertibre des Nobles de la Pro- 
vince d'Overysul, &c.," in answer to a letter which the 
Baron had addressed to him from " Zwol, 1th December, 
1778," in which the Governor uses these words : 

" On the 16th June, 1775, it was resolved to form a post 
on that part of the high grounds of Charlestown nighest 
to the town of Boston ; from which we should have the 
power of annoying the enemy, both in thfe town and har- 
bor. The plan for the execution of this determination ^cas 
not ivell formed ; and the executive part, dependent on 
ofl&cers and troops unacquainted with discipline, was still 
more inattentively prosecuted. About six hundred men, with 
arms and entrenching tools, were marched down in the 
evening, and broke ground at twelve o'clock. The en- 
trenchments, for want of engineers, were in a similar stvle 



Dawson's third letter. 



103 



witli tlie preparatory steps, sufficiently wjiidicmis. At day- 
break, of the 17tli of June, we were discovered by the 
enemy, and a cannonade immediately commenced, which 
continued, with little interruption, though as little execu- 
tion, till afternoon. Meantime the unfortunate six hun- 
dred, fatigued with labor and want of sleep, and quite 
inadequate in number to the defense of the post they had 
been employed to form, were not only -not relieved by fresh 
men, but not even furnished with provisions and liquors for 
their refreshment, or the extraordinary ammunition which 
they must necessarily expend. In this situation they were 
attacked, at three o'clock p.m., by twelve hundred British 
troops, under the command of General Howe. Yet even 
when thus unsupported hy their brethren, exposed to the fire 
of several ships of war and batteries, and the attack of 
double their number of men, they maintained their post 
with determined firmness, and repeatedly forced the enemy 
to give -way ; till General Howe, being strongly reinforced, 
and finding themselves still abandoned to their fate, their am- 
munition exhausted, their commanding officer, the brave 
General Warren, and near half their number killed or 
wounded, the remaining few fled, and left the enemy mas- 
ters of the field. To add to the horrors of this ?mv scene, 
the town of Charlestown was set on fire, and reduced to 
ashes. Perhaps there have been few more obstinate battles 
ever fought ; near one half the troops engaged, on each 
side, being either killed or wounded ; that is, of the British, 
eleven hundred, and of the Americans more than three 
hundred." 

I have cited all that Governor Trumbull said on this 
subject, in order to show what the people of Connecticut 
thought on the subject in 1779 ; and '' Selah'' and the Sec- 



104 Dawson's third letter. 

retary of State are welcome to all they can make out of it 
for the glorification of General Putnam. I beg to remind 
the Honorable Secretary, at the same time, that the originals 
of both the Baron's letter and the Governor's answer are 
in the Library of the Massachusetts Historical Society ; 
that my copy of the document, formerly ow^ned by the 
DwiGHTS of Connecticut, and " duly authenticated,^^ cost me 
seventy-five cents ; that the same opportunity still exists to 
obtain copies ; and that nine dollars, or thereabouts, may 
be saved from the reward which he offered, and may be in- 
vested in Charter Oak charms, for the consolation of 
" Selahy When Governor Trumbull wrote this letter, 
and for many years afterwards, it was not pretended that 
Putnam commanded in " the Battle of Bunker's Hill," nor 
had his name been used, in any manner, as a prominent 
actor in that engagement ; and the writer was no more 
called on to say that Putnam did not command at Bunker's 
Hill, than I am to say that " Selah " is a gentleman and a 
scholar, or to mention any other fact or fiction which is 
foreign to the suljject. It is a very significant fact, how- 
ever, that while the Governor condemns the management 
of the affair, and the failure to strengthen the foi'ces and 
to supply them with ammunition, he never mentions Gene- 
ral Putnam's name, but, on the contrary, calls " the brave 
General Warren " " their commanding officer." 

Passing thence to " SelaKs " next subject — that " in re- 
ferring to the exploits of Putnam in the wolf-den, at Horse- 
neck, and the French War," I have " adduced nothing to 
refute them that has a semblance of validity or argument." 
I do not feel called upon to enlarge on those subjects. A 
discriminating public has already decided between " Selah" 
and myself, in the evidence which each has adduced : and 



DAWSON S THIRD LETTER, 105 

my opponent, in spite of liis inclinations to the contrary, 
lias prudently bowed to its verdict, without appeal, and 
discontinued the discussion. On one subject, however — 
tltat of Bunker's Hill — he has received a fresh supply of am- 
munition and a. reinforcement, in which respect he has 
fared better than the gallant troops of whom he pretends 
to speak ; and, taking courage from that circumstance, he 
proposes to make that subject " a test ;" and, from ". the 
evidence " which he adduces "in reference to General Put- 
nam's position in that battle, to build up, at once, a monu- 
ment of that hero's glory and Mr. Dawson's shame." I 
confess I did not, before, suppose I possessed so much con- 
sequence as to secure so handsome a compliment. Israel 
Putnam and Henry B. Dawson receiving, at the same time, 
from the same hands, the honor of an undivided " monu- 
ment!'' It is true that to idm it is to be a monument of 
" glory'' while to me it is to be one of " shame ; " yet it is 
to be " a monument ;" and when it is remembered that epi- 
taphs generally speak falsely, and that both sides of a subject 
are seldom looked at, now-a-days, by the same persons, it 
matters but little what is on the other side, and an eulogy 
of Putnam might as well appear there as any other inscrip- 
tion. Would it not be well, in this connection, for " Selah " 
to take counsel of the past, and to recollect the monument of 
*' shame " which Haman erected for Mordecai ; and, hav- 
ing done so, to inquire to what use that " monument " Avas 
actually put, and to take warning ? 

I have now come to the second part of the communica- 
tion, signed " Sdah " — that in which the ingenuity of his 
faithful squire has been so elaborately employed. We may 
readily know a man from the company he keeps ; and this 
14 



106 Dawson's third letter. 

assistant '* Champion" of Putnam's character differs but 
little, except in scholarship, from his veteran cliief. If I 
do not mistake, he also is a soldier of fortune, and ready to 
cast his services in support of that cause which pays the 
"best — alternately " flaunting ' Sustinet qui transtuJet ' " in the 
eyes of Governor Tryon, in behalf of the injured Woos- 
TER ; and filling the columns of the Hartford Courant with 
eulogistic essays on the greatness and goodness of Put- 
nam, while the communication now under consideration 
shows that, like " Selah," he does not hesitate to manufac- 
ture testimony to support his cause, when he fails to find 
it ready for his use. 

He opens his part by asserting that " it is a well-known 
fact that Putnam held a regularly commissioned command 
of the Continental troops previous to the battle of Bunker 
Hill " — a falsehood, to begin with, which any school-boy of 
your common schools can refute. It is true that during 
the session in April, 1775, {April 26,) the Assembly of 
Connecticut, "finding it prudent and necessary to make 
open preparation, passed ' An act for Assembling, Equip- 
ping, &c., a number of the Inhabitants of the Colony, for 
the special defense and safety thereof ;' " and it is equally 
true that Israel Putnam was appointed Captain of the 
First Company of the Third Regiment, Colonel of that 
Regiment, and Second Brigadier-General — Generals Woos- 
TER and Spencer being his superiors in ofiice : but that 
appointment did not give him " a regularly commissioned 
command of the Continental troops," or any other com- 
mand beyond those to which I have referred — the Connec- 
ticut troops, who had been raised " for the special defense 
and safety of that colony." If Mr. Day's official certificate 
shows anything more than this, it shows a falsehood ; for 



Dawson's third letter. 107 

where did the Assembly of Connecticut, from which he re- 
ceived all the power he possessed, receive any authority to 
legislate for the government of any person beyond the 
limits of that colony ? and how could the commission, 
which the government of that colony had issued, authorize 
him to command the Continental troops, which had never 
been heard of when he received that commission ? In fact, 
he was, like the officers whom Connecticut commissions at 
the present day, an officer of the Connecticut troops, 
while they are on duty in Connecticut, or under her au- 
thority, and nothing more. In due course of time portions 
of these troops and their officers, by order of the General 
Assembly, at its April session, went " to the relief of the 
people at the Bay," and Putnam went with them. His 
commission, however, was as so much white paper the 
moment he crossed the line which separated Connecticut 
from Rhode Island, except among the Connecticut troops, 
by whom alone his authority was recognized ; and not a 
shadow of authority did he possess or exercise over the 
troops of any other colony. The extent of the authority 
which these officers exercised, even among their own 
people, while outside of Connecticut, is evident from the 
fact that, after a few days' experience, " a large portion of 
these minute men," who had proceeded to Massachusetts 
from Connecticut, " soon returned to their homes." (Froth- 
ingJiam^s Siege of Boston, p. 100.) On the other hand, " al- 
though the orders of the day were copied by all the troops, 
and a voluntary obedience, it is stated, was yielded to 
General Ward by the whole army, as the commander-in- 
chief ;" {Frothingham, I). 101,) that obedience was not gen- 
eral, and difficulties ensued. In fact, at the time of the 
action on Bunker's Hill, the only troops which General 



108 Dawson's third letter. 

Ward had any authority to command were those of Mas- 
sachusetts and New Hampshire -Connecticut, tlirough its 
Committee of War, retaining the command of her's until 
June 19, [Blinufcs of the Committee of War, Monday, June 
19, 1775, A.M.,) and Rhode Island that of her " army of 
observation," until June 28, {Minutes of the General Assem- 
bly, June 28, 1775,) and this accounts for the fact that the 
only troops wdio could be sent by General Ward, to 
strengthen the detachment on Bunker Hill, were the New 
Hampshire troops, under Colonels Stark and Reed.* Such 
was the standing of Israel Putnam on the 17th June, 
1775, wdien "the battle of Bunker Hill" was fought— a 

* The following extract from an interesting letter, written by Hon. John Adams, 
many years after the battle, will show the well-settled opinion of that great man on 
the subject now under consideration : 

Ql-in'cy, Jl'ne 19, 1818. 

Dear Sir : I have received your letter of the 16th. My letter to Colonel Daniel 
PcTXAM, of the 5th, is at his and your disposal. You may publish any part of it, or 
the whole, at your discretion. 

I wish the young gentlemen of the age would undertake an analytical investigation 
of the constitution of the army at Cambridge, and of the detachment fiom it at Bunk- 
er's Hill and Breed's Hill, on the Kith and 17th of June. 

The army at Cambridge loas not a national army, for there was no nation. It 
was not a United States army, for there were no united colonies ; for, if it could be 
said in any sense that the colonies were united, the centre of their union— the Congress 
at Philadelphia— had not adopted or acknowledged the army at Cambridge. 11 icas 
not a Wew England army ; for New England had not associated. New England 
had no legal legislature, nor any common executive authority, even upon the principles 
of original authority, or even of original power in the people. 

Massachusetts bad hei- army, Connecticut her army. New Hampshire her army, 

and Rhode Island her army. These four armies met at Cambridge, and imprisoned 

the British army in Boston. But who was the sovereign of this united, or rather, 

congregated army, and who its commander-in-chief? It had none. Putnam, 

Poor and Greene, were as independent of Ward as Ward was of them. None of 

them but Ward was subject to the orders of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress. 

I desire to know from whom Putnam received his commission, and from whom Poor 

received his commission ; and I pray let the commissions of Ward, Putnam, Poor and 

Greene be all produced. * * * * * But, sir, I must suppress a thousand 

questions, and conclude. 

Your humble servant, 

George Brinley, Esq. JOHN ADAMS. 



DAWSON S THIRD LETTER, I(;9 

Colonial General, exercising no legal autliority, except 
over the Connecticut troops ; and, with them, recognizing 
the right of no man or body of men outside of the Con- 
necticut Committee of War, to issue orders for their 
government. On the 19th of Juno— two days after the 
action, and the same day on which the Committee of War 
had ordered him to yield obedience to General Ward — 
he was appointed a Major-General in the Continental 
service ; and it was not until General Washington had 
reached Cambridge that he received his commission. With 
these/acts he/ore Jam at the time when he penned the para- 
graph in question, as icas the case, what can be said in favor 
of one who could deliberately falsify tlie record to support 
his favorite theory ? This is shown from the fact that 
" Sdah " cites, in another part of this letter, from the very 
work which contains the printed records referred to. I 
repeat, therefore, that General Putnam was not a Conti- 
nental officer previous to, or at the time of the battle of 
Bunker Hill ; that he recognized the authority of no one 
but the Committee of War in Connecticut, to issue any 
orders for the government of the troops of that colony ; 
and that he possessed no authority (and could enforce 
none) over the troops of either of the other colonies. 

The next subject which is introduced is a statement that 
Governor Trumbull ordered Putnam to " repair at once 
to Cambridge, and take charge of the troops, and he would 
make out his commission, and send it on after him ;" that 
" thus we have abundant evidence that Putnam was the 
commander-in-chief of the American troops before the 
battle ;" and that, " taking this for granted, it is but fair 
to suppose that he also commanded them in the battle." 
In the perusal of this paragraph, I have been at a Jnsg 



110 Dawson's thied letter. 

"whether to attribute it to the ignorance or to the dishon- 
esty of the writer. As I have shown already, Putnam was 
an officer of the colony of Connecticut, commanding the 
Third Regiment of Connecticut troops, and subject only 
to the orders of the General Assembly, or the Committee 
of War in that colony. He had marched to Boston, by 
order of the Governor, in conformity with law ; and as 
the superior officer, had also orders " to take charge of the 
troops there." But is any one so void of common sense as 
to suppose that Governor Trumbull issued such an order, 
with the expectation or desire that the New Hampshire, 
Massachusetts, and Rhode Island troops would recognize 
Putnam as their commander-in-chief ; or even that Putnam 
so understood it? At the period in question, Massachu- 
setts had eleven thousand five hundred men in the field, 
under the veteran Ward ; New Hampshire, one thousand 
two hundred, under the same officer ; Connecticut, two 
thousand three hundred, thus placed under Putnam, in the 
absence of his superiors ; and Rhode Island, one thousand, 
under General Greene, (Frothingham, 101,) and he must be 
ambitious of honor who would assume, as this writer has 
done, that Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hamp- 
shire would so tamely submit to the dictation of Connecti- 
cut, or yield the command of their' troops to an officer of 
her appointment, who had not even received his commission 
from the hands of her Governor. 

Next comes a melo-dramatic account of a supposed coun- 
cil, wherein General Ward, Doctor Warren and General 
Putnam are represented as discussing " the subject of for- 
tifying Bunker's Hill," with all " the effect" which excites, 
to so great a degree, the admiration of the pit in the old 
Bowery. In answer to this silly interlude, it is only neces- 



Dawson's third letter. Ill 

sary to say that this measure was adopted in the Commit- 
tee of Safety of Massachusetts, of which neither Ward nor 
Putnam were members. A fac-simile copy of the original 
order, signed by "Benja. White, Chairman,''^ may be 
found in Frothixgham's Siege of Boston, page 116, and the 
entire proceedings, at length, appear in the Minutes of the 
Committee of Safety, June 15, 1775. I miglit also refer to 
the impossibility of Putnam conducting such a conversation 
as is here described ; and in evidence of his accomplish- 
ments, I refer to the following correct copy of an order 
which he issued while commanding in the city of Philadel- 
phia in 1776 : 

head quartors, ye 14 of December, 1776. 

All ofisors and solders boath Thoas that are Newly in- 
listed into the contenontol sarwis Thosof the flieing Camp 
the melishey and all the Inhabitence of this City are re- 
quested to parad to morrow morning at 9 o'clock at the 
Markit to go on fitig to fortify this city and so on Every 
morning tel farther orders. Israel Putnam. 

Before proceeding to an examination of the main ques- 
tion, on its own merits, allow me to inquire what testimony 
has been adduced by my opponents to prove that General 
Putnam was present, either in the redoubt or behind the 
rail-fence, during the action of June 17, 1775. 

First. We have the jottings down of floating rumors, 
by President Stiles, of Yale College, all of which were 
disproved by his subsequent entry, on the 23d June, which 
was made on General Putnam's own authority. 

Second. We have a false quotation from Judge Gros- 
venor's letter to Daniel Putnam — " ' he was in a Connec- 
ticut regiment,' who, with a much larger number of Mas- 
sachusetts troops, under Colonel Prescott, were ordered 



112 Dawson's third letter. 

by General Putnam to march on the evening, etc." The 
original, which is now before me,^" reads thus : " Being 
under the command of General Putnam, part of our regi- 
ment, and a much larger number of Massachusetts troops, 
under Colonel Prescott, w^ere ordered to march on the 
evening, &c." Any school-boy can see that, while in the 
original letter the authority of General Putnam and that 
of Colonel Prescott were equal, each commanding liis 
own party only, the interpolation of " by General Putnam," 
at the close of the ixiragraph, by " Selah,^' makes a cool, 
deliberate falsehood, and brands the author of the fraud 
with all the shame which attaches to him who feloniously 
removes his neighbor's land-mark. 

Third. We have an extract from Mr. Whitney's fune- 
ral sermon — the very first claim which was ever made in 
behalf of General Putnam. As General Putnam never 
claimed any such honor while he lived, even when he was 
relating his services as a basis for a claim on his country — 
his acknowledged occupation of Prospect Hill having sat- 
isfied him, even in that emergency — I do not feel called 
upon further to show the worthlessness of this authority. 

Fourth. The extract from Major Jackson's diary is 
such that I do not object to it as authority, inasmuch as it 
does not disprove any statement which I have made. 

Fifth. We have a reference to John Boyle's diary, 
which, " Selah^^ says, " was kept at that time.'" While the 
statements extracted therefrom do not disprove anything 
I have said, why does " Sdah " unnecessarily tell a false- 
hood in connection with the book ? If he knows enough 
about this diary to quote from it, he knows it was not 

* The letter here referred to can be found by the reader, if he desires to contiiine 
the investigation, in the Portfolio, fifth series, vol. 6, pages 9-11. 



Dawson's third letter. 113 

" kept at that time," nor for many montlis afterwards ; and 
even then, that it was mostly a compilation from the news- 
papers of the day, and in the language of these nseful but 
rather uncertain publications. By this special clause did 
" Selah " propose to repeat the same fraud on the public 
which he attempted in the case of Judge Grosvenor's let- 
ter, already referred to, or was it done for my especial 
benefit, in the present discussion ? 

Sixt/i. Eivington's "JYew York Gazette'' may serve a 
very good purpose when it is sustained by more reliable 
authorities ; yet I very much question if it proves anything 
in opposition to the testimony of those who were eye-wit- 
nesses of the circumstances in question, unless, it may be, 
the very great necessity under which " Selah " labors for a 
little evidence to sustain his errors. Those who know 
the character of Eivington's Gazette, in all which relates 
to the jJojndar cause, need not be told that it cannot be re- 
lied on— the Boijal Printer, in New York, having been 
poor authority on all popular movements which transpired 
in Boston. 

Seventh. " Colonel Swett " is cited and lauded as a 
very paragon of authenticity. My opinions of this gentle- 
man's works on Putnam are already before your readers ; 
and, with the fact before me, that it was he who besmeared 
a historical fact with the filth and slime of partisan malig- 
nity, I do not hesitate to say that I cannot discriminate 
between his word, on this subject, and the documents which 
he has mutilated for party purposes, and all are alike dis- 
carded as unworthy of confidence. 

Eighth. We have allusions to " affidavits of Governor 
Brooks, Colonel Wade, Judge Grosvenor, Major Lyman, 
15 



114 Dawson's third letter. 

Colonel Webb, Anderson Miner, Joshua Yeomans, Sim- 
eon Notes, and many others," to prove the exploits of 
Putnam in covering the retreat of the Americans. I beg 
leave to say that Judge Grosvenor makes no allusion to 
Putnam in this connection, his words being, " which our 
brave Captain Knowlton perceiving, ordered a retreat of 
his men, in which he was sustained by two companies under 
the command of Captains Clark and Chester." Yeomans 
makes no allusion to the retreat. Notes says, " When we 
were retreating, he rode up to us with his tent and tent- 
poles on his horse, and asked " why we were retreating? " 
Colonel Wade speaks of the retreat, without referring to 
any very remarkable conduct on the part of Putnam. 

Ninth. We have the hearsay testimony of Colonel 
Wade, Ethan Clark, William Williams, and the pub- 
lisher of an anonymous portrait — none of whom possessed 
any peculiar advantages for acquiring information over 
their neighbors in Providence, Lebanon, or London, and 
all of whom have been contradicted by those who were en- 
gaged in the action, as well as by the records of the trans- 
actions, connected therewith, to which their testimony 
relates. 

Tenth. Dr. James ThaaJher is cited to prove that 
Putnam commanded at Bunker's Hill — " on the American 
side, Generals Putnam, Warren, Pomerot, and Colonel 
Prescott, were emphatically the heroes of the day, and 
their unparalleled efforts were crowned with glory ! " In 
this extract, " Selah " says, " It will be seen that Thacher 
places Putnam first, thus seeming to give him precedence 
also in command." I have before me a copy of " The Mili- 
tary JournaV — the work from which the above is taken — 
and find " Selah," or his squire, has imitated their leader 



DAWSON S THIRD LETTER. 115 

in this controversy, by mutilating the text, in order to sus- 
tain a falsehood. Thacher says (page 26), " It was 
deemed important that our troops should possess them- 
selves of this eminence {Bunker^s Hill) before the enemy 
could occupy it. Accordingly orders were given to Colonel 
Prescott, a veteran of the last war, with one thousand men, 
to march silently in the evening of the 16th June," &c. 
Again, on the same page, without assigning the command 
to either of them, he says, " Generals Putnam, Warren 
and PoMEROY animated and encouraged the troops with 
their presence." But, on page 29, appear the words, with 
little variation, as cited by " Selah," followed, however, by 
these important remarks, which he has suppressed, in order 
to make Dr. Thacher support what he has expressly de- 
nied — " The incomparable Colonel Prescott marched at 
the head of the detachment, and though several general 
officers were present, he retained the command during the 
action. He displayed a native, daring bravery altogether 
unrivaled, and infused the conquering spirit of a soldier 
into the hearts of all who were under his command, and 
crowned himself with immortal honor." Such, Mr. Editor, 
is the manner in which my opponents are conducting this 
investigation ; and in this manner have your readers been 
imposed on by these self-constituted guardians of " the 
honor of Connecticut." 

Eleventh. " Selah " next favors us with extracts from the 
letter of a nameless officer of the British army, in Boston, 
to his friend in England, which he coolly says, " all go to 
establish Putnam's claims to the honor, not only of com- 
mandership, but of having taken a brave and daring part 
in the strife." Your readers need but see the words of the 
officer to be convinced of the deception which my opponents 



116 Dawson's third letter. 

have employed. "After the skirmish of the 17th, we even 
commended the troops of Putnam, who fought so gallantly, 
2^1-0 avis et focis." Putnam's troops did " fight gallantly, 
jyro avis et focis," but Knowlton led them, while Putnam, 
as we shall presently show, was not present — the paragraph 
in question making no allusion whatever in support of 
Putnam's " coramandership," or Putnam's " presence in the 
strife." Again, the officer, speaking of the secrecy with 
which the expedition was conducted, says, " Generals 
Clinton and Burgoyne knew not of it till the morning, 
though the town did in general, and Putnam in particu- 
lar." I confess I do not see wherein this sentence, over 
which " Selah" manifests so much pleasure, has any bear- 
ing on the questions at issue ; or wherein it proves or dis- 
proves anything which either " Selah " or I have asserted. 
As General Putnam gave the orders to the Connecticut 
troops, on the evening of the 16th, and as he accompanied 
them on their " secret" and silent march — leaving them at 
work on the hill at one o'clock — I can see no reason why he 
should " not have known of it," in particular, nor have I ever 
supposed or argued differently. I have no desire to limit 
the pleasure either of "Selah" or his squire, however; 
and if they find comfort in these extracts, let them enjoy 
the feast, 

Tivelfth. " Selah " refers to sundry ex parte affidavits 
which Colonel Swett and his associates, under the direc- 
tion and at the expense of the Federalists of Boston, pre- 
pared and caused to be executed and verified, in or about 
1818, for the purpose of securing the defeat of the Demo- 
cratic candidate for Governor of Massachusetts, Major- 
General Henry Dearborn, who had fearlessly exposed the 
true character of General Putnam a short time before. 



Dawson's third letter. in 

Colonel SwETT " devoted two months of his life, night and 
day, to this subject," {Letter of Colonel Sivett to Ballard (f: 
JVrigJd, 1819,) to say nothing of like services by other 
party hacks, who were equally zealous and not less un- 
scrupulous ; and when the principles, or rather the want of 
principles, which actuate all such gentlemen, when thus 
employed, are considered, the peculiar character of these 
papers— especially that of those of them which were exe- 
cuted by men who could neither read writing or sign 
their own names — will be readily appreciated. In another 
part of this letter I shall examine the contents of these 
affidavits ; and if your readers will refer to that division 
of my subject, they will see that " SelaJi" has added to the 
interest which attaches to these affidavits per se, when he 
or his squire, says, " they all agree that Putnam was on 
Bunker's and Breed's Hills, both in the night of the 16th, 
and during the day of the 17th of June, 177^. They all 
agree, too, that he there performed the duties devolving 
upon a commander ; and that they, as well as their com- 
rades in arms, always considered him their commander on 
that day." 

Thirteenth. We have Mr. Frothingham's " Siege of Bos- 
ton " produced as evidence to show that Major Moncrieffe 
and General Putnam were intimate friends in 1775 ; and 
that at that time they met, in the exchange of prisoners, 
and parted " with the utmost decency and good humor." 
From this " Selah " affects to prove that I have " twisted " 
an incident which occurred before Boston, in 1775, into 
" an act of treason " in the city of New York, in 1776. I 
beg my opponents will not thus abandon their favorite. 
It was the fact of Major Moncriepfe's acquaintance with 
Putnam, and his knowledge of the General's weakness, 



118 Dawson's third letter. 

which led that distinguished officer to dispatch his own 
daughter as a spy into New York, and to intrust her 
within the General's family. No father would thus have 
hazarded the life of a talented daughter, had he not 
felt assured, beforehand, that she would be safe ; and in no 
hands could he have more properly placed her, than in 
those of a personal friend, whose patriotism was deposited 
in his pocket-book ; and whose interest, in the cause of the 
United States, fluctuated with his pecuniary interests. 

Lastly. We have extracts of letters from General 
Washington and Joseph Reed, and of an editorial in 
" The Connecticut Courant,^^ which " Selah," like a dealer in 
quack medicines, parades as certificates of the wonderful 
character of his article. It will become my duty, before 
closing this letter, to invite the attention of your readers 
to the opinions of these same officers, and others, respecting 
Putnam, as shown by their acts, during the dark days of 
our country's history. Until that time I shall let these 
extracts pass unnoticed. 

We come now to the first grand division of my opponents' 
labors — the occupation of the heights in the night of June 
16, 1775 — in the examination of which I propose to be as 
brief as possible, consistent>with my desire that " Selah " and 
his assistant may have no just excuse for misrepresenting 
me, or of misunderstanding my meaning. 

I. Why, and by whom, was the occupation of the 
heights near Charlestown originally ordered? My 
friends in Hartford say it " was to draw the enemy out of 
Boston, on ground where they might be met on equal 
terms ;" and, on that hypothesis, they build up the bombas- 
tic conversation which, as they assert, took place " in the 
American camp," between Generals Ward and Putnam 



DAWSON 8 THIRD LETTER. 119 

and Doctor Warren, to which allusion has heretofore been 
made. In assigning this as the reason, however, my oppo- 
nents have been only the faint imitators of their leader, 
Colonel SwETT, in his " History of the Bunker Hill Battle, 
A.D. 1827," page 14, forgetting, as he forgot, that "the 
American camp " was not the origin of the subject ; that 
Doctor Warren had no voice in " the Council of War," and 
could not, therefore, have taken part in its discussions ; and 
that as Generals Ward and Putnam held no seats in " the 
Committee of Safety," where it did originate, they could 
not have taken part in the discussion of the subject before 
that body — where alone, if anywhere. Doctor Warren could 
have taken the part which has been assigned to him. 

As the records, previously cited, show that my opponents 
have mistaken the character of the body from whence the 
project of the occupation of the heights proceeded, so they 
have also erred in their theory respecting the purpose of 
that movement. Instead of desiring thereby " to draw 
the enemy out of Boston," as my opponents maintain, the 
records show that the very reverse of this was the object. 
The resolutions of the Committee of Safety— the original 
authority in the premises— open with this preamble, " In 
Committee of Scfety, Cambridge, June 15, 1775. Where- 
as, it appears of Importance to the Safety of this Colony 
that possession of the Hill, Called Bunker's hill in Charles- 
town be Securely kept and defended ; and allso some one 
hill or hills on Dorchester neck be likewise Secured. 
Therefore, Resolved Unanimously," <fcc. On the 7th July, 
1775, the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts ordered 
the Committee of Safety to " draw up and transmit to 
Great Britain a fair and impartial account of the late 
battle at Charlestown, as soon as possible ;" and, on the 



120 Dawson's third letter. 

25tli of the same month, that committee made its report, 
which commences with these words : " In obedience to the 
above order of Congress, this committee have inquired 
into the premises, and, upon the best information obtained, 
find that the commanders of the New England army had, 
al ^ut the 14th ult., received advice that General Gage had 
issued orders for a party of the troops under his command 
to post themselves on Bunker's Hill, a promontory just 
at the entrance of the peninsula of Charlestown, which 
orders were soon to be executed. Upon which it was de- 
termined, with the advice of this Committee, to send a 
party, who might erect some fortifications upon said hill, 
and defeat this design of our enemies ;" and, lastly, an 
entry in the diary of Eev. Dr. Belknap, Oct. 20, 1775, on in- 
formation received from General Ward's aid, confirms this 
statement ;* from all of which it is evident that the object 
of the movement was to confine the enemy within the town, 
rather than " to draw him out ;" that the Committee of 
Safety, instead of " the American camp," was the scene of 
the original movement in the premises ; and that the part 
said to have been taken by Generals Ward and Putnam, 
from the fact that these officers could not have been present 
in the committee, is simply ridiculous. 
II. From whom did the orders finally proceed, and 

* " After dining with General Wabd, I returned to Cambridge ; in the evening, 
visited and conversed with General Putnam. Ward appears to be a calm, cool, 
thoughtful man ; Putnam, a rough, fiery genius. 

" In conversation with Mr. Ward at Roxbury, I learned that the reason of our 
throwing up the intrenchment at Charlestown, on the night of the 16th June, was, that 
there had been intelligence received, such as could be depended on, that the regulars 
had determined to make a push for Cambridge, after the arrival of their three gen- 
erals and reinforcements, who landed a few days before." — Br. Belknap's Diary, Oct. 
20th, 1775. 

The " Mr. Ward" referred to was " Mr. Joshua Ward, aid-de-camp to the General," 
as will be' seen by reference to the Doctor's diary, " Oct. 19i/i." 



dawson'b third letter. 121 

TO WHOM WERE THEY DIRECTED? It will be recollectecl 
that my opponents stated, {Daily Post, Monday, April 18,) 
" we have abundant evidence that General Putnam was 
the commander-in-chief of the American troops before the 
battle;" and if this is true, the source from whence the 
orders proceeded is no longer in doubt. In that case the 
orders must have proceeded from General Putnam, and no 
other officer could have assumed the authority ; yet the 
facts, as shown by the documents, do not sustain that 
theory. The troops to whom the orders were issued were 
William Prescott's, Frye's and Bridge's regiments of 
Massachusetts troops, and part of Putnam's regiment of 
Connecticut troops (Frothingham's Siege of Boston,^. 121; 
Colneol William Prescott's letter to Ron. John Adams, Auo- 
25, 1775 ; Capt. Joseph Chester to Rev. Joseph Fish, July 
22, 1775.) The order books of the " Massachusetts army," 
on this subject, read thus : " June 16. Frye's, Bridge's, 
and Wm. Prescott's regiments to parade this evening at 6 
o'clock, with all the entrenching tools in this encampment." 
It will be seen from this order — copied from Captain Fen- 
no's order-book — that General Ward made no pretensions 
to the command of the Connecticut troops, the reason for 
which I have already alluded to, while the orders to the 
latter were issued by their senior commanding officer 
present, General Putnam. This is shown from the letter 
of Judge Grosvenor, a Lieutenant in Putnam's company, 
and, it is said, his son-in-law, addressed on the 30th April, 
1818, to Putnam's son. Colonel Daniel Putnam. This let- 
ter, which has been mutilated and incorrectly copied by 
Colonel Swett and some of his auxiliaries, opens with 
these words : " Being under the Command of General 
Putnam, part of our regiment, and a larger number of Mas- 
16 



122 dawson's third letter. 

sachusetts troops, under Colonel Prescott, were ordered 
to march," &g. Thus were the detachments from the two 
" armies" ordered to the work of fortifying the hill — those 
belonging to the Massachusetts army by their commander, 
General Ward, and those belonging to the Connecticut 
forces by General Putnam ; and the pretensions of my op- 
ponents that Putnam was the commander-in-chief of the 
entire force then before Boston, are put at rest. 

III. Did Putnam accompany the expedition, and if so, 
IN what capacity? The testimony of several who were 
present throw sufficient light on the subject, and the ap- 
parent contradiction of the witnesses — more apparent than 
real — is less important than some have supposed. In this 
connection, however, it is proper to premise, that in no 
part of " Selah's " correspondence is there a more total dis- 
regard of the requirements of truth than in his comments 
on the depositions of the soldiers who fought on Breed's 
Hill. In that portion of the letter which appeared in the 
Post of Thursday, April 21, " Selah^s" assistant says, 
" in their depositions they all agree that Putnam was on 
Bunker's and Breed's Hill, both on the night of the 16th 
and during the day of the 17th of June, 1775. They all 
agree, too," he continues, " that he there performed the 
duties devolving upon a commander ; and that they, as 
well as their comrades in arms, always considered him 
their commander on that day." In this place I have to 
examine only that portion of " all " these depositions which 
relates to the part which Putnam took in the expedition 
now under consideration, leaving that portion which re- 
lates to the action of the 17th June for another time. 

The testimony which " Selah " has adduced, although 
adroitly mixed up by his assistant, in order to conceal the 



Dawson's third letter. 123 

true character of the greater part of it, is composed of 
three distinct elements : Fhst, that of Connecticut troops 
who were in the expedition ; Second, that of Massachu- 
setts troops, who were also in the expedition ; and, Third, 
that of persons who were not present, and could know 
nothing about the matter, except from the information of 
others. 

Commencing with the last class — the alleged testimony 
of those who were not present — we find the deposi- 
tions of Reuben Kemp, Richard Gilchrist, Ebenezer 
Bean and Samuel Bassett, of Colonel Stark's New 
Hampshire troops ; John Barker, Benj. Mann and Enos 
Lake, of Colonel Reed's New Hampshire troops ; Isaac 
Bassett, Ariel Bugbee, James Clark, Colonel Daniel 
Putnam and Josiah Hill, of General Putnam's Connecti- 
cut regiment ; Major John Burnham, Simeon Noyes, Cap- 
tain Wade, Lieutenant Joseph Whitmore and Philip 
Johnson, of Colonel Little's Massachusetts regiment ; 
Jos. Trask, Deacon Millar, Enoch Baldwin, John Hop- 
kins, Mr. Thompson and William Dickson, of Colonel 
Gardner's Massachusetts regiment ; Sergeant Job Spaf- 
FORD, of Ward's Massachusetts regiment ; A. Dickerson, 
of Colonel Woodbridge's Massachusetts regiment ; Benja- 
min BuLLARD, of Colonel Brewer's Massachusetts regi- 
ment ; John Holden and Samuel Jones, of Colonel Doo- 
little's Massachusetts regiment ; Wm. Marden, of Colonel 
Gerrish's Massachusetts regiment ; Geo. Leach, of Colo- 
nel Whitcomb's Massachusetts regiment ; Daniel Jack- 
son and Francis Green, of Foster's Massachusetts artil- 
lery ; Major Elihu Lyman, Anderson Miner, General 
Benj. Pierce, of New Hampshire ; Jesse Smith, William 
French, Russel Dewey, Wm. Low, Thomas Davis, Na- 



124 Dawson's third letter. 

THANiEL Rice, Amos Foster, David Brewer, Elijah Jour- 
dan, J. Page and A. Smith — all soldiers, but to what regi- 
ments they belonged are now unknown ; the nameless 
" army chaplain," Thomas Cooke, Hon. Wm. Tudor, Hon. 
John Adams, (who was then in Congress in Philadelphia,) 
and Judge Winthrop, none of whom were present, and in 
whose testimony there is not a single syllable concerning 
the expedition which was sent to the heights in the even- 
ing of the 16th June. 

I come now to the testimony of the Connecticut 
troops who went out on that memorable expedition, and 
find that General John Keyes — who was Captain Knowl- 
ton's brother-in-law, and first Lieutenant — whose posi- 
tion, as the second in command, would have given unu- 
sually fine opportunities for seeing Putnam's exploits, 
had he done any, is equally silent respecting that ofiicer, 
and he makes no allusion whatever to him in connexion 
with this expedition. So also were Governor Brooks, 
Alexander Davidson, Isaac Hunt and Francis David- 
son, of Bridge's Massachusetts regiment ; Philip Bag- 
ley and John Stevens, of Frye's Massachusetts regi- 
ment ; and Ezra Runnels, of Gridley's (Massachusetts) 
artillery, all in the expedition, but equally silent about 
Putnam. 

With these names withdrawn from " SelaVs " alleged 
advocates of Putnam, there are but few left of the 
" all " who " agree that he (Putnam) there performed the 
duties devolving upon a commander ;" and who, " as well 
as their comrades in arms, always considered him their 
commander." If " Selali " or his squire had possessed the 
least particle of self-respect, they would never have made 
this attempt to impose upon the credulity of your readers. 



Dawson's third letter. 125 

even in support of a bad cause ; nor "would they now be 
willing to look any honest man in the face. 

As I have said, the names which I have selected above, 
from those referred to in " /SeZa/i's" letter, do not mention 
Putnam, either directly or indirectly, in connexion with 
the expedition now under consideration, leaving only 
JosiAH Cleveland, Joshua Yeomans, Abner Allen, John 
Dexter and Judge Grosvenor, of Putnam's Connecticut 
regiment, and Ebenezer Bancroft, of Bridge's Massachu- 
setts regiment, who make the least possible reference to Put- 
nam as having been present, or exercising authority at that 
time. But, still farther, even these do not sustain " Selah's " 
assertion concerning the extent of Putnam's authority. 
Cleveland, Youmans, Allen and Dexter, speak of him 
only as " leading " and " ordering " the Connecticut troops, 
of which he was the Colonel ; leaving to '' Selah " only 
Bancroft and Putnam's son-in-law, Grosvenor, as the sole 
support for his ambitious theory. As I have never de- 
nied that Putnam might have been present with the party, 
as a reference to my account of Bunker Hill (Battles of 
the United States, 1, page 52,) will show, I have no fault to 
find with the testimony of the four witnesses who are 
first named ; in fact, they are more favorable to me than 
to " Selah " or his assistant. The son-in-law of Putnam — 
by no means a disinterested witness — says, "Being under 
the command of General Putnam, part of our regiment, 
and a much larger number of Massachusetts troops, under 
Colonel Prescott, were ordered to march on the evening 
of the IGth of June, 1775, to Breed's Hill, where, under 
the immediate superintendence of General Putnam, ground 
was broken and a redoubt formed." The other witness, 
Edward Bancroft, says he " was at the laying out of the 



126 Dawson's third letter. 

works on Breed's Hill," and tliat " the lines were marked 
out by Putnam." On this testimony alone, added to a 
large amount of assertion, " Selah " rests his case ; and 
with an amount of assurance which but few beside himself 
and his assistant can produce, he boldly proclaims that 
Putnam commanded the expedition. At the proper time 
I propose to inquire who commanded the troops on that 
eventful night, contenting myself, for the present, by citing 
disinterested witnesses to show that " Selali " and his friend 
are mistaken. Deacon Samuel Lawrence — father of Abbott 
and Amos Lawrence, names with which every New Eng- 
lander is familiar — made an affidavit, in which appear 
these words : " I, Samuel Lawrence, of Groton, Esquire, 
testify and say, that I was at the battle of Bunker's 
Hill, (so called,) in Colonel William Peescott's regiment ; 
that I marched with the regiment to the point on Breed's 
Hill, which was fixed on for a redoubt ; that I assisted in 
throwing up the work, and in forming a redoubt, under 
Colonel Prescott, who directed the whole of this opera- 
tion. The work was begun about nine o'clock in the 
evening of June IG, 1775. I was there the whole time, 
and continued in the redoubt, or in the little fort, during 
the whole battle, until the enemy came in and a retreat 
was ordered. General Putnam was not present, either 
while the work was erecting or during the battle," &c. 
Mr. Bancroft {History of United States, 7, page 410,) says 
of this event, " Putnam also, during the night, came among 
the men of Connecticut on the hill ; but he assumed no 
command over the detachment." Mr. Frothingham, {Siege 
(f Boston, 2d edition, page 122,) says, "Here (Charlestown 
Neck) Major Brooks joined them, and, probably, General 
Putnam and another General ;" and again, (page 124,) 



Dawson's third letter. 127 

" When the detachment reached Breed's Hill, the packs 
were thrown off, the guns were stacked, Colonel Gridley 
marked" out the plan of a fortification, tools were distrib- 
uted," &c. Colonel William Prescott (" Letter to John 
Adams, Camp at Camhridge, Aug. 25, 1775,") says, " We 
arrived at the spot, the lines were drawn by the engineer, 
and we began the entrenchment," <fec. Hon. William Tu- 
dor, son of the .Tudge-Advocate-General of the army, who 
tried some of the cowards of Bunker Hill, {lAfe of Otis, p. 
469,) without alluding to Putnam, says, " The troops under 
the direction of Colonel Gridley, an able engineer, were 
busily engaged in throwing up a small redoubt," &c. This 
brings me to the next branch of my inquiry. 

IV. AVho was the commander of the expedition? As 
has been already shown, " Selah " claims the honor for 
General Putnam, as he has also claimed for that officer 
the general command of all the " American troops " then . 
before Boston. I have examined this latter claim, and 
showed that, although the orders which were issued to the 
Connecticut troops proceeded from him, as their senior 
general officer present, those under which the Massachu- 
setts troops acted did not proceed from him, but from Gen- 
eral Ward of Massachusetts ; and I have proved therefrom 
that Putnam was not " the commander-in-chief of the Ameri- 
can troops before the battle." Pursuing the investigation 
downward, I have next shown that although Putnam may 
have been present during the night of June 16th, it was 
not he who acted as the engineer in laying out the works ; 
that if Keyes and other Connecticut men, and Prescott 
and other Massachusett.s men, all belonging to that expedi- 
tion, are to be relied on, it was not he who commanded the 
expedition ; and that if Cleveland, Dexter, Youmans 



128 Dawson's thied letter. 

and Allen, all belonging to his own regiment, can be re- 
lied on, he may have " led " and " ordered " his own regi- 
ment, although even that is denied by many of those who 
are best informed on this and kindred subjects. I now 
propose to inquire, as Putnam was not, who luas the com- 
mander of the expedition. 

General Ward, the commander of the Massachusetts 
army, and President of the Council of War, who directed 
the movement, {Letter to John Adams, Oct. 30, 1775,) says, 
" Some have said hard things of the officers belonging to 
this colony (Massachusetts), but I think, as mean as they 
have represented them to be, there has been no one action 
with the enemy which has not been conducted by an officer 
of this colony, except that at Chelsea, which was conducted 
by General Putnam." General Heath, also a member of 
the Council of War, {3Iemoirs, page 70,) speaking of his 
orders to Colonels Hand and Prescott, to oppose General 
Howe, on Throgg's Neck, calls Prescott "the hero of 
Bunker^ s Hill f^ Rev. John Martin, who was in the thick- 
est of the fight, in a communication to President Stiles, 
" June 30, 1775," says the colonists " took possession of 
Bunker's Hill, under the command of Colonel Prescott." 
Dr. James Thacher, who ,at that time was the associate 
of President Warren and others of the leading men of 
Massachusetts, {Military Journal, page 26,) says, " Orders 
were given to Colonel Prescott, a veteran of the last war, 
with one thousand men, to march silently," &c. Colonel 
William Prescott, " the hero of Bunker's Hill," {Letter to 
John Adams, Aug. 25, 1775,) says, " On the 16th June, in 
the evening, / received orders to march to Breed's Hill, in 
Charlestown," &c. Hon. Wm. Tudor, son of the Judge- 
Advocate-General of the army, already referred to, {Life 



DAVrSOX S THIRD LETTER. 129 

of Otis, pairc 4G9.) after speaking- at some length of Colo- 
nel Prescott, sajs, " On the IGth June, three regiments 
were placed under him, and he was ordered to Charlestown 
in the evening, to take possession of Bunker's Hill, and 

throw up works in its defense." Rev. Peter Thacher 

the chairman of the sub-committee of the Massachusetts 
Committee of Safety, which prepared the narrative of the 
battle already referred to— left, appended to a copy of that 
narrative, in his own hand-writing, these words : " The 
following account was written by a person who was an eye- 
witness of the battle of Bunker's Hill ; what facts he did 
not see himself were communicated to him from Colonel 
Prescott, {icho commanded the Provincials^' «fcc. Dr. 
Gordon, who was then at or near Roxbury, in his invalu- 
able history of the American Revolution, {Ed. London, 
17 88, 2, page 39,) says, " Orders were issued that a detach- 
ment of a thousand men, under Colonel William Prescott, 
do march at evening and entrench upon the hill," &c. 
Chief Justice Marshall, {Life of Washington, Ed. London, 
1804, 2, page 289,) says, "In observance of these instruc- 
tions, a detachment of one thousand men, under the com- 
mand of General Prescott, was ordered to take possession 
of this ground." Mr. Bancroft, {History of the United 
States, 7, pages 408-410,) confirms this opinion, closing his 
remarks with the words which were cited under the last 
division of this subject. James Graham, a British author- 
ity, {History <f United States, Ed. London, 1836, 4, p. 379,) 
says, " Orders were accordingly communicated to Colonel 
Prescott, with a detachment of one thousand men, to take 
possession of the eminence." The able author of the article 
on "Bunker Hill," which appeared in the " Analectic 
Magazine," for Feb., 1818, after speaking of Breed's Hill,, 

17 



130 Dawson's third letter. 

proceeds thus : " Here it was that a detachment from the 
American army of one thousand men, under Colonel Pres- 
COTT, began at 12 o'clock," <fec. In that work for March, 
1818, is a more minute account of this portion of the his- 
tory, compiled from information received from Governor 
Brooks, of Massachusetts, who, it will be remembered, was 
present ; in which, after describing the character of those 
who went out of the camp to occupy the heights, he adds, 
" Colonel Prescott had the command." Dr. Holmes, in 
his valuable " Annals of America," {Ed. Cambridge, 1829, 
2, page 209,) says, " Orders were accordingly issued on 
the 16th June for a detachment of one thousand men, under 
Colonel Prescott, to take possession of that eminence," 
&c. Mr. Frothingham {Siege of Boston, page 122,) says, 
" The detachment was placed under the command of Colo- 
nel William Prescott, of Pepperell, who had orders from 
General Ward to proceed to Bunker Hill," &c. Mr. 
Ellis {Oratioiiat Charlestoion, 17th June, 1841, pages 27, 
28,) speaks of Colonel Prescott only as the commander of 
the expedition. Mr. Everett {Oration at Charlestoion, 
17th June, 1836, page 19,) says, " Prescott, the Colonel 
of one of the Middlesex regiments, was the officer who, on 
the 16th June, received >the orders of the Council of War 
to occupy the heights of Charlestown, and who commanded 
in the redoubt on the day of the battle." Deacon Samuel 
Lawrence, a soldier on the hill, in the deposition which 
has been cited in the last division of this subject, says, " I 
assisted in throwing up the work, and in forming a redoubt, 
under Colonel Prescott, who directed the whole of this 
operation." Other authorities might be cited to support 
this assertion, were it necessary ; but I will close with in- 
vitins: the attention of " Selah " to his friend, Colonel 



DAWSON S THIRD LETTER. 131 

SwETT, who, in his '' History of Bunker's Hill Battle," third 
edition, page 18, tells us that, "with the advice of the 
Council of War, General Ward issued orders to Colonel 
William Prescott, Colonel Bridge, and the commandant 
of Frye's regiment, to be prepared for an expedition, with 
all their men fit for service, and one day's provisions. 
The same order issued for one hundred and twenty of 
General Putnam's regiment, and Captain Gridley's com- 
pany of artillery, with two field-pieces. With these troops 
Colonel Prescott was ordered to proceed to Charlestown 
in the evening, take possession of Bunker's Hill," &c. 
Again, on the next page, he says, " Not an officer in the 
army could have been selected better deserving the honor 
of the appointment, or more able to execute the arduous 
enterprise, than Colonel Prescott. In this veteran, age 
already began to display its ravages ; but the fire of his 
youth was undamped." Lastly, on page 20 of the same 
work, he says, " Gridley laid out the works immediately 
with skill, which would honor any engineer in the highest 
advance of military science." 

With these evidences of the unsoundness of " SelaWs " 
theory of the origin, means, and direction of the expedition 
of the 16th of June, I submit this part of the subject to the 
judgment of your readers. I have never denied that Put- 
nam, when present, was the commandant of his own regi- 
ment, nor do I now deny it ; and I have yet to learn that 
in refusing to extend to him an authority which he did not 
possess, until some weeks afterwards, I am either injuring 
the reputation of Putnam or the " honor of Connecticut." 
If I maybe allowed to judge, however, from cause to effect, 
I can easily perceive how those who seek to obtain honors 
for Putnam and for Connecticut, which belong to other 



132 Dawson's third letter. 

men and to other States, may readily excite tlie alarm of 
others, and commit a wrong which Putnam, if living, would 
condemn, while Connecticut herself gains nothing from 
the controversy. 

Before proceeding to an examination of the second grand 
division of " Selah^s " elaborate letter, two subjects require 
a brief examination, not only for the confirmation of my 
views of the occupation of the Hill, but for the correct 
understanding of the truth, and of " Selah's " errors, on the 
matter of the action of the succeeding day. 

I. Did Putnam remain on the heights during the 

WHOLE OF THE NIGHT ; AND IP NOT, WHY DID HE LEAVE THE 

expedition? Mr. Frothingham (Siege of Boston, page 
124,) says, " General Putnam, after the men were at labor, 
returned to Cambridge." Colonel Swett {History of Bun- 
leer Hill Battle, page 21,) says, "The men quietly at their 
labors, General Putnam repaired to his camp to prepare 
for the anticipated crisis, by bringing on reinforcements, 
and to be fresh mounted ; his furious riding requiring a 
frequent change of horses." Accepting these statements as 
true — of which I should have no doubt, since "Selah''s " assist- 
ant endorses them — I would respectfully inquire if it was 
the duty of the commander of the expedition — the part 
which my opponents have assigned to Putnam — to aban- 
don his command, in order to seek reinforcements ? and 
whether it was not the usual practice of " the commander- 
in-chief of the American troops," which dignified office 
" Selah " and his squire have claimed for Putnam, to em- 
ploy an aid-de-camp in all such duties ? I would also in- 
quire from my Hartford friends, if this was the object of 
Putnam's mission to Cambridge, why Major Brooks, at 9 
o'clock, a.m., was sent after him on the same errand? 



r 



Dawson's third letter. 133 

Why, in view of the authority with which Putnam is said 
to have been vested, lie did not succeed in obtaining the re- 
inforcements he went after? Why lie was returning to 
the Hill, without the desired assistance — a powerless " com- 
mander-in. chief " — when Major Brooks met him, between 
9 and 10 o'clock the next morning? And, finally, why, 
under these circumstances, the latter officer, also, did not re- 
turn to the Hill, but continued on his course to Cambridge, 
for the same purpose for which he had been despatched, by 
Colonel Prescott, from Breed's Hill ? I would also most 
respectfully inquire from " Selah " and his attendant where 
" the furious riding " had taken place, which compelled 
Putnam to repair to Cambridge, whence the detachment 
had just come, for " a change of horses," as soon as "the 
men were quietly at work ;" especially since the marcli 
from that place had been conducted with the greatest 
possible silence ? Can my opponents also oblige me by 
explaining why the regiment of New Hampshire troops, 
under Colonel Stark, was not ordered to Charlestown 
by General Putnam, instead of by General Ward, (Col. 
Stark to N. H. Committee of Safety, June 19, 1775,) if the 
former held the supreme command ? These questions are 
all pertinent to the issue, and " Selah " may enlighten me, 
and possibly himself, by ascertaining and communicating 
the true answers, with references to his authorities. I 
will not trouble him to copy the authorities at length, as, 
notwithstanding I live in the country, I presume I have 
the works on my shelves. 
n. How WAS General Putnam employed from the 

TIME HE left THE MEN AT WORK, IN THE NIGHT OF JUNB 
16tH, to THE OPENING OF THE ENGAGEMENT ON THE FOLLOW- 
ING AFTKRNOON ? As has been shown, " General Putnam, 



134 Dawson's third letter. 

after the men were at labor, returned to Cambridge." As 
it was " about twelve o'clock " when " the men began to 
work," (FrofJiingham, page 124 ; Sivett, page 21 ; Bancroft, 
7, page 409 ; Thacher's Military Journal, page 26,) and as 
the General was mounted (Sivett, page 21,) it could not 
have been later than one o'clock when the latter reached 
his camp ; so that from and after one o'clock in the morn- 
ing of June 17th, until the commencement of the action, 
on the afternoon of the same day, is the period of time 
which is now under consideration. The most zealous 
friend of Putnam makes no pretense that he did anything 
after he arrived at Cambridge, (about one o'clock,) until 
daybreak — about four o'clock — when, it is said, he " di- 
rected Lieutenant Clark to send to General Ward for a 
horse ;" and of this no contemporary evidence is adduced, 
nor does any appear, in the numerous affidavits and letters 
which the long-continued discussion on Bunker Hill has 
drawn forth. Admitting, therefore, the truth of Colonel 
Swett's assertion, for the argument's sake, not less than 
three hours of that eventful night were spent by Putnam, 
" Selah's " incomparable commander-in-chief, in his camp 
at Cambridge, in some private, untold occupation — " pre- 
paring for the anticipated crisis," it is said ; while Pres- 
cott and Knowlton and their men, in a different style, 
were also " preparing " for that event, with spade and pick- 
axe and crow-bar, within. the lines on the heights of Charles- 
toAvn. History has recorded the determined, uncompro- 
mising patriotism of the latter ; and the story of their 
zeal, their sufferings and their bravery, will go down to 
future ages with constantly increasing glory; while gen- 
erations yet unborn will associate the names of Warren 
and Prescott, Knowlton and Stark, with the great prin- 



Dawson's third letter. 135 

ciples for which they fought ; and in giving thanks for the 
blessings with which they will be surrounded, they will not 
forget to mention those through whose instrumentality 
they have been secured. 

I have said that Colonel Swett — " Selah's " great leader 
— states that " at day-break, Putnam directed Lieutenant 
Clark to send to General Ward for a horse ;" but the 
Colonel, and " Selah" after him, wisely declined to draw 
the curtain, and show the whereabouts and occupation of 
Putnam from one to four o'clock on that morning. With- 
out doing more than pointing out to your readers the 
peculiar situation of Putnam at day-break, compared with 
that of Prescott at the same moment, I might rest my 
case, and safely leave to their judgment the determination 
of the matter at issue. On the one hand, we have the " tall 
and commanding " figure of Prescott, with " countenance 
grave, ardent and impressive as his character ;" " and, with 
his formidable sword, he needed no uniform to distinguish 
him as a leader'" (Swetfs BunJcer Hill Battle, page 19.) 
" In a simple calico frock he had headed the detachment which 
left camp at dark " (Ibid.) ; and now, with " these braw- 
ney yeomen," " instructing and stimulating " them, he was 
" working for their lives as well as their liberties," on 
Breed's Hill ; or, " watchful as Argus," was cautiously 
providing for their safety (Sivett, page 21). On the other 
hand, we have Putnam, a " rugged son of Mars," (Ibid., 
page 7,) the assumed "director and superintendent of the 
expedition," {Ibid., 19,) 

" Turning his sides, his shoulders, and his heavy head," 

in his camp at Cambridge, several miles distant from 
the men of whom he is claimed to have been the " direct- 



136 DAWSON'S THIRD LETTER. 

or," and of the works of which, in that case, he would 
have been the " superintendent." Like a ynnident man, he 
had left the scene of danger, his men and the works, three 
hours before, in order that he might " prepare for the an- 
ticipated crisis," by securing, in a safe place, a comfortable 
nap. The guns of the Lively, which had just opened their 
fire on the works which Putnam had not " superintended," 
and on the men whom he had not " directed," at the time in 
ciuestion, had aroused " the American Samson" {Swett, 
page 6,) (as they had also aroused General Gage in Bos- 
ton,) from the slumbers into which he had fallen ; and he 
hastened to complete the " preparations," which had been 
so successfully commenced. At once, therefore, rubbing 
open his eyes, and unrolling himself from the blanket in 
which, for three hours, he had been " preparing for the 
anticipated crisis," the glorious " commander-in-chief," like 
Richard of old, could only cry out, in his confusion, 

" A horse, a borse, my kingdom for a horse !'' 

before he returned to his slumbers ; and, for five hours 
more, he was as busily occupied in completing his " prepara- 
tions," before leaving the camp, on his return to the hill.* 
As I said before, like a prudent man, he had sought safety 
and comfort in Cambridge ; your readers, Mr. Editor, can 
judge, therefrom, of his qualifications for the post of " com- 
mander-in-chief of the American forces, before the battle," 
as well as of the true character and extent of his authority 
on Breed's Hill. 

But to proceed. Colonel Swett says that " at daybreak," 
Putnam was at Cambridge, calling for a horse ; and that 

* He was met onCharlestowu Neck by Major Brooks, at between nine and ten o'clock 
in the morning— his first appearance— on the 17th of Jane. 



Dawson's third letter. 137 

he " flew to join his men on the hill," (page 24.) Strange 
to say, however, not a single soldier has been found who 
was willing to swear he saw him there after tlio Lively 
opened her fire, at which time he had not left Cambridge ; 
nor can one be found who will venture to say anything 
about him, until between 9 and 10 o'clock, more than four 
hours later, when Major Brooks, then on his way to Cani- 
l)ridge to ask for reinforcements, met him on the Neck, 
riding toward the hill. In the absence of any corrobora- 
tive testimony on this subject, " Selah^' must pardon me 
for the rejection of Colonel Swett's assertion that Putnam 
visited the works before 10 o'clock. I have no doubt that 
" Selah " has good reasons for endorsing the trustworthi- 
ness of that venerable friend of Putnam ; I have reasons, 
which are satisfactory to myself, at least, for rejecting 
everything which he says on Putnam, unless it is supported 
by other and better authorities. I cannot forget that this 
gentleman, for party purposes, in order to influence a popu- 
lar election for Governor of Massachusetts, embarked in a 
Putnam crusade, " devoting two months of his life, night 
and day, to this subject f^ and that, with all the malignity 
of party spirit, immediately after the close of the last war 
with Great Britain, he gathered, garbled and published 
the testimony to which " Selah " refers. I cannot forget 
that it was he who, in 1818, edited an edition of "Humph- 
rey's Life of Putnam," with an appendix, on page 212 of 
which he gravely asserted that Putnam remained on the 
hill all night,t notwithstanding the contrary was proved by 

* " Tbe reviewer should devote two mouths of his life, night and day, to this subject, 
as the author hoi^, before he makes his strictures with such overweening confidence."— 
Col. Swctl to Ballard & Wright, in answer to " i.," 1818. 

t " Tlie men quietly at their labors, Gen. Putnam, in the morning, repaired to the 

18 



138 DAWSON'S THIRD LETTER. 

the testimony which he possessed at the time ;* nor do I 
fail to remember that he was compelled to correct that 
statement in subsequent editions.! He it was, too, who 
mutilated the depositions of Reuben Kemp and Alexander 
Davidson, and the statements of Judge- Advocate Tudor, 
and the Hon. Mr. Cooke, of Doctor James Teacher, 
Colonel Sargent of New Hampshire, and the Rev. John 
Martin, compelling them to appear in the character of 
witnesses for Putnam, while they really testified against 
his claims ; and when, in this connexion, the fact is borne 
in mind that the strongest testimony which " Sdali " pro- 
duces, in support of Putnam's pretensions, are depositions 
of soldiers who had been influenced by fees and gifts, at the 
expense of the Federalists of Boston, for the purpose of de- 
feating General Dearborn ; that they were made by men, a 
great number of whom could not sign their own names, or 
read for themselves, what others had written for them ; and 
that they were prepared and verified in the presence of onl}^ 
one party, for the use of that party only the amount of 
credibility which attaches to Colonel Swett's unsupported 
assertions will be readily perceived, and some of the reasons 
for my rejection of all such testimony as unworthy of the 
name of history. 

If Putnam was on the hill between one and ten o'clock, 
it appears strange that no testimony has yet been found to 



camp to prepare for the anticipated crisis," &c. — Sketch of Bunker Hill Battle, in 
App. to Humphrey's Putnam, 1818. 

* " At day-break, Gen. Putnam ordered Lieut. Clark to send and request of Gen. 
Ward a horse for liim (o ride to Bunker Hill." — Ihe same work, page 217. 

f Without attempting to reconcile the inconsistency of his remarks, that Putnam re- 
mained on the Hill " until morning,^' although he was said to have been at Cambridge 
" at day-break," in the third edition of the " Sketch," (page 21) Col. Swett has omitted 
the words " in the morning" from the description of Putnam's departure from the Hill. 



DAWSOX's THIRD LETTER. 139 

prove it ; and if he was at Cambridge during those hours, 
or during any portion of the same period, what was he 
doing there ? The " preparations " which he had made 
during that time have received no notice, even from his 
most particular friends ; and all that we know of his move- 
ments, during the nine hours which he was absent from 
the hill, was the visit which he made to Prospect Hill, 
" early in the morning," to order Doolittle's regiment to 
march to the Hill " by 9 o'clock," {Deposltmi of Captain 
John Hblden, Adjutant of the day,) which, being com- 
posed of Massacbusetts men, it did not obey —Major Moore, 
who commanded the regiment, having joined the troops 
who had thrown up the works, "just previous to the action," 
{Frothingham, page 136 ; Sivetfs Bunker Hill Battle, page 
30; Bancroft, 7, page 418), and then only as volunteers, or 
under orders from General Ward, who alone was his legal 
commander. 

He reached the works, then, about ten o'clock, and 
busied himself in attempting to find men who would obey 
his orders, and throw up some defensive works on Bunker's 
Hill. In this undertaking — a very proper one at that 
time — he appears to have met the same resolute disobedi- 
ence which had troubled him before ; and at eleven o'clock, 
when Doctor Thomas Kittredge left the Hill, Putnam 
was at the foot of Bunker's Hill, requesting some of the 
by-standers to go to the fort, and see if they could get some 
of the intrenching tools, (Dr. Kittredge's Deposition.) 
General Benjamin Pierce, of New Hampshire, (father of 
ex-President Pierce), also saw Putnam about 11 o'clock on 
Bunker's Hill, {Deposition of General Pierce.) At a later 
hour — during which interval we find no mention of his 
whereabouts in any contemporary document or authority — 



140 DAWSON .S THIRD LETTEE. 

lie went in p«\so??, " and told Colonel Prescott that the 
intrenching tools must be sent off, or they would be lost ; 
the Colonel replied, that if he sent any of the men away 
with the tools, not one of them would return ; to this the 
General answered, ' they shall every man return.' A large 
party was then sent off with the tools, and not one of them 
returned," (General HeatJts dlemoirs, i>. 20.) With this 
party, increased by others, who, like himself, preferred to 
be more distant from danger than the positions which 
Prescott and Knowlton occupied, Putnam returned to 
Bunker's Hill, and there he remained, with but little, if any 
interruption, until the action commenced. Among the 
earliest of the reinforcements which reached the peninsula 
was Colonel Gerrish's regiment, one of whose men, Wil- 
liam Marden, says that on reaching the top of Bunker's 
Hill, he saw General Putnam on horseback, riding back- 
ward and forward, urging the men onward to the charge, 
and presently saw him ride down the hill toward the works, 
(Deposition of JVilUam 3larden.) Colonel Stark's regi- 
ment came up about two o'clock — having left Medford, 
four miles distant, '' about one o'clock" — and, " as it passed 
on to Breed's Hill," when near the summit of Bunker's 
Hill, General Putnam was seen " on the declivity towards 
Charlestown Neck, with Colonel Gerrish by his side." 
(Statement of General Henry Dearborn.) Major Caleb 
Stark, of the same regiment, (Letter to General Wilkinson, 
Nov., 1815,) says, "His (Putnam's) station was on Bunker 
Hill, and he performed no j^ortion of the operations at 
Breed's Hill." Reuben Kemp, of the same regiment, also 
speaks of the work on Bunker^s Hill, as well as other sub- 
jects connected with the action, which will be noticed in 
their proper places. (Deposition of Reuhen Kemp.) That 



Dawson's third letter. 141 

portion of Colonel Bridge's regiment whicli Captain Ford 
commanded, " reached the Hill just before the action be- 
gan," (FrotJiingJiam, p. 176,) yet even then Putnam was 
on Biml'er^s Will. — "As we were going on to the lines, 
and had gained the hill hack of Breed's Hill, General Put- 
nam came up to Captain Ford, and told him that two 
pieces were left," &c. [Deposition of Alexander Davidson, 
of Ford's Companij.) General Benjamin Pierce, (father of 
ex-President Pierce,) who also served in Ford's Companj^, 
says, " Putnam did not give any orders, or assume any 
command, except on Bunker's Hill, as they were going to the 
field cf hattle." (General Pierce's deposition.) Colonel 
Moses Little, at the head of three of his companies, 
marched to the hill, and took their station on the right of 
the breast-work, immediately before the battle commenced, 
(Frothingham, p. 177; Deposition of Benjamin Webber) ^\\A 
Webber, one of his men, a friend of General Putnam, 
says, and swears to it, that " passing over Bunker's Hill, 
we saw General Putnam, who rode up to Captain Warner, 
and said, " My brave fellows, march forward to the breast- 
work on Breed's Hill," {Deposition of Benjamin Wehher.) 
Captain James Clark, of Putnam's regiment — one of our 
hero's own ofi&cers— says, that while he was crossing 
Charlestown Neck, the firing commenced, and that, at the 
same time, he saw General Putnam on horseback, at, or 
near the same place. Captain Trevett, of Gridley's ar- 
tillery, also " arrived on Bunker's Hill, and saw General 
Putnam ; halted, and went forward to select a station for 
his company; returned, and saw Putnam in the same place 
as before. At this time the action had commenced." {De- 
position of Captain Trevett.) 

I need not pursue this 1)ranch of my inquiry any farther, 



142 DAWSON S THIRD LETTER. 

although an abundant supply of material yet remains un- 
employed. Your readers will perceive that I have used 
but few witnesses who had not already been introduced to 
their notice by "yS'eZa/i" and his assistant, in their last 
communication ; and I take pleasure in referring to the 
fact that they embrace men of the highest character in 
their respective regiments. From this testimony— and 
there is none which can contradict it with any force — it is 
clear that Putnam was asleep in his tent, or otherwise 
withdrawn from public life, until the guns of the Lively 
aroused the entire army near five o'clock on the 17th ; that 
from that time until about nine o'clock, he was riding 
about the encampments, seeking for some Massachusetts or 
New Hampshire regiment, which would receive his orders 
and march to the Hill, in which he found that none were 
so mean as to do Mm reverence ; that about nine he started 
toward the Hill, meeting Major Brooks, and that he 
reached Bunker's Hill soon afterward ; that he again re- 
newed his effort to find a command, in which, after securing 
the aid of the venerable Pomeroy, {Deposition of William 
French) he so far succeeded, that Colonel Prescott was 
deprived of the greater part of his force ; that with these, 
and such poltroons as Gerrish, he commenced to throw up 
a breast-work on Bunker^s Hill ; that he was on that Hill 
immediately before the action commenced ; and that he 
was on the declivity of the same Hill, toward the Neck, or 
on the Neck itself, at the moment when the action com- 
menced, on the other side the Hill. 

This brings me to the second grand division of my op- 
ponents' communication — the part which Putnam per- 
formed IN the engaCxEMent of the 17th June. In this, as 
in other branches of the subject througli which I have passed. 



Dawson's third letter. 143 

I propose to separate the examination of each part from that 
of the others, not only for my own convenience, but for that 
of your readers in following me through the confusion into 
which the party hacks, forty years ago, have thrown this 
simple historical subject. To my own satisfaction, at least, 
I have directed the attention of your readers to the occu- 
pation of PuTXAM, on the 17th of June, 1775, before the 
commencement of the action ; and I now proceed to 
inquire : 

I. Ix WHAT MANNER WAS HE ENGAGED, AND WHERE WAS HE 

DURING THE FIRST ATTACK BY THE ENEMY? It will bc remem- 
bered the enemy landed at Morton's Point, on the eastern 
extremity of the peninsula on which Breed's and Bunker's 
Hills are situated, {Sicetf, p. 26,) that this point is upwards 
of nine hundred yards, in a straight line, from the redoubt 
and the rail-fence, while that portion of Charlestown Neck 
which is nearest to the works on Breed's Hill and to the 
rail-fence, is not less than the same distance, in a direct 
line, from the scene of the action, {Maj) in SiveiVs History^ 
and the scale on it.) It will also be remembered that the 
rail-fence was from one hundred and ninety to two hundred 
yards distant from the entrenchments, at the points where 
they most nearly approached each other, {Frothingham, p. 
135; Sicett, p. 27;) that this position was occupied by 
Captain Knowlton, after the enemy had landed at Mor- 
ton's Point, (Frothingham, p. 134 ; Sicett, p. 26,) and that 
the period of time embraced in the first attack on the 
works — that is, from the first fire, on either side, to the 
flight of the assailants — did not exceed five minutes. 

With these facts before us to start with, let us examine 
the evidence, and inquire " where Putnam was, and what 
he was doing, during these eventful five minutes ? " The 



144 Dawson's third letter. 

testimony already adduced shows that a few minutes be- 
fore the action began, he was on Bunker's Hill, between 
the redoubt and Charlestown Neck, and his own most 
ardent friends have never asserted the contrary. Captain 
James Clark, of Putnam's Connecticut regiment, was on 
Charlestown Neck when the firing commenced, and Put- 
nam, on horseback, was at or in sight from that place, as 
Captain Clark " saw General Putnam as he was crossing 
the Neck," wdiich would seem impossible— Bunker's Hill 
intervening — if Putnam had been on or near the scene of 
the action. Captain Trevett, of Gridley's artillery, in 
the deposition already cited, testifies that Putnam was on 
the north-west side of Bunker's Hill, toward the Neck, and 
opposite. from the scene of action, while " the action was 
then going on." I cite this from Colonel Swett's synop- 
sis of the deposition. {Notes, (itc.,i^.S.) Deacon Miller, 
also an ensign in Colonel Gardner's regiment, " said, re- 
peatedly, that he saw Putnam on Bunhcr's Hill when the 
action commenced." Samuel Bassett, of Style's company, 
Stark's regiment, left the camp after the regiment had 
marched, and testifies that he " arrived at Ploughed Hill, 
near the Neck," (now Mount Benedict, on the main land,) 
" a few minutes before the fire commenced. In about 
fifteen minutes, General Putnam came up on the gallop, 
and said, " Up, my brave boys, for God's sake ; we drive 
them." {Deposition of Samuel Bassett.) 

As, by the testimony previously adduced, it has been 
shown that, before the battle, Putnam, with the coward 
Gerrish, occupied the north-west slope of Bunker's Hill, 
out of harm's way, so, by the positive testimony of eye- 
witnesses—Captains Clark and Trevett, Ensign Miller 
and Stephen Bassett — it is quite as certainly shown that 



Dawson's third letter. 145 

he remained there during the first attack, and until he 
rode over the Neck toward Cambridge, with the intelli- 
gence of the repulse of the enemy. It is true that, for 
political purposes, Reuben Kemp, of Stark's regiment, has 
sworn that he was posted, with his company, " at the re- 
doubt and breastwork, which was thrown up the night 
before ;" that they " remained there till the enemy came 
to the attack;" and that "General Putnam seemed to 
have the ordering of things," &c. It is equally true, how- 
ever, that garbled and mutilated copies of this deposition, 
changing its character, have been circulated by the friends 
of Putnam to support a bad cause ; {compare Colonel SivcU's 
Notes, 2Kiges 4, 5, tvith the original) that Stark's regiment 
was not posted in the works " which was thrown up the 
night before," as Kemp pretends, but at the rail-fence, 
near the Mystic river, {General Dearborn's letter to the Port- 
folio, page 175.) and that Judge Winthrop, of Cambridge, 
Judge Abel Parker, of New Hampshire, and Deacon 
Lawrence, of Groton — father of Hon. Abbott Lawrence — 
all of whom were present, testify positively that Putnam 
was not in that part of the field. 

It is also true that Isaac Bassett, of Putnam's rco-i- 
rncnt, testifies that he, too, " arrived at the redoubt and 
breastwork just before the battle began, and saw General 
Putnam there encouraging the troops," &c. It is equally 
true, however, that all the Connecticut troops were with 
Knowlton at the rail-fence, {Stcett, page 26 ; Frofhingham, 
page 134,) instead of being at the redoubt and breastwork; 
that the evidence of those who were ut the latter works 
positively disprove the statement ; and that another wit- 
ness in the same cause — Alexander Davidson — asserts 
positively that at the same time he is said to have been on 

19 



146 Dawson's third letter, 

the Hill, he was present behind the rail-fence, near the 
Mystic. 

But, as if to prove the frailty of all that is human, Gen- 
eral Putnam himself has settled the question, as the follow- 
ing extract from President Stiles' MS. Diary — that valu- 
able receptacle of the current news of the day — will fully 
prove : 

" June 23, 1775. — Messrs. Ellery, Chang, <fec., returned 
here from a visit to the camp, which they left on Saturday 
last. They spent an hour with General Putnam in his tent 
on Prospect Hill, about half-way between Cambridge and 
Charlestown. The General gave them an account of the 
battle last Saturday, said the . number on one side was not 
ascertained," &c. 

" Putnam loas not at Bunker Hill at the beginning, hut soon 
rejxiired thither, and was in the heat of the action till to- 
ward night, when he went away to fetch across this rein- 
forcement, which ought to have come before. Soon after, 
and before he could return, our men began to retreat," &c. 

As the entry speaks of " our body on BicnJcer Hill, 
where was the action " — the place at which " Putnam 
was oiot at the beginning " — it will be perfectly appar- 
ent to all that reference is here made to the scene of 
that action of which ^' Selah" and his squire, following 
Colonel SwETT and the Federalists of 1818, would have the 
people of Connecticut believe Israel Putnam was the 
commander-in-chief and the hero. 

Having shown that General Putnam was not present 
during the first attack of the enemy on the Colonists, let 
us inquire : 

n. In what manner was he engaged, and where was 

HE, between the FIRST AND SECOND ATTACKS ON THE AmERI- 



Dawson's thikd letter, 147 

CAN WORKS ? In answer to tliis question, I need only submit 
the statements oi^'Selah's " own witnesses. Daniel Putnam, 
the General's son, in his letter of Oct. 19, 1825, says, " In 
the interval between the first and second attacks of the 
British on our line, he (General Putnam) rode back to 
Bunker Hill, and in the rear of it, to urge on reinforce- 
ments." This statement is confirmed by Colonel Swett, 
(pages 35-6,) and by Mr. Frothingham, {Siege of Boston, 
pages 142-3,) and, as all parties appear to agree on this 
point— that Putnam was not on the field of battle between 
the first and second attacks of the enemy — I need not oc- 
cupy your columns by unnecessarily enlarging on the sub- 
iect. I proceed, therefore, to inquire : 
III. In what manner was he engaged, and where was 

HE, during the second ATTACK ON THE WORKS BY THE ENEMY ? 

After a careful examination of all the authorities— those 
which support, as well as those which oppose, the preten- 
sions of General Putnam's friends— I have been unable to 
find any one which pretends that the General was on the 
field of battle during the second attack. He had started 
off towards Cambridge, under the pretense of bringing 
forward the reinforcements; and when he was near Charles- 
town Neck, he met Colonel Gardner's regiment, (Deposi- 
tions of Enoch Baldwin, Deacon Miller, and others belonging 
to that regiment,) and ordered it to go to work on the 
entrenchment on Bunker's Hill, (Depositions of E.Baldioin 
and Deacon Miller.) As this regiment had walked from 
the main land since the first attack had been commenced, 
(Depositions of William Dickson, Enoch Baldwin, and Mr. 
Thompson) and as the firing was renewed, (the second at- 
tack) just after the regiment had crossed the Neck, (Depo- 
sitions of Deacon Miller, William Dickson, and Captain 



148 DAWSON S THIRD LETTER. 

Francis Green,) wlierc Putnam met it ; and as Putnam, 
with this regiment, loas on the top of Bunker^s Hill, 
while the action was still going on below, {Deposition of 
JVilliam BicJcson,) I can readily accomit for the silence of 
those who would gladly have given their hero this honor, 
if it could have been done with safety. I do not forget, 
however, that, years ago, an attempt was made by " SelaKs " 
great authority, in view of the break in his finely wrought 
chain of evidence, which this awkward fact produces, to re- 
pair the defect by .boldly mutilating the deposition of 
Alexander Davidson ; that the mutilation was detected 
and exposed by one of his own townsmen ;* and that he 
acknowledged his guilt in subsequent editions of his work, 
by transferring his story from the second to the first at- 
tack, to which it truly applied, if it applied at all. It is 
by such leger-de-main as this that Putnam's reputation has 
been manufactured, from the night when the fox robbed 
his hen-roost, or the wolf robbed his sheep and goat 
pasture, to that on which he became a " skinner," and, him- 
self, robbed the Robinson House and its vicinity, at the 
expense of the United States.t 

I proceed, however, to inquire : 

IV. Where was General Putnam, and how was he en- 
gaged, BETWEEN the SECOND AND THIRD ATTACKS ON THE 

American Lines ? In this, as in the last division of my sub- 
ject, there is not a single friend of General Putnam who has 
pretended that he was on the field of action during the 
period of time embraced between the second and third at- 
tacks of the enemy. Even Colonel Swett is silent on this 



* David Lee Childf, Esq., iu An Inquiry into the Conduct of Gen. Israel Putnam. 
t Gen. Geo. Clinton to Col. Alex. Hamilton, Dec. 28, 1777. 



Dawson's third letter. 149 

subject ; and " Sclah,'' like all similar creatures, in similar 
cases, also keeps his mouth shut. Enoch Baldwin tells 
us, however, " General Putnam rode up to the Colonel, 
(Gardner) and advised him to let his men carry some en- 
trenching tools, and said we should not have any more 
fighting, as the British had been beaten twice, and had re- 
treated the second time." {Deijosition taken hy his son and 
Colonel Swett.) The same Bunker's Hill was still the scene 
of his assiduous care ; and while Prescott and Knowlton 
and Stark were struggling with the enemy, on Breed's 
Hill and on the bank of the Mystic, Putnam was " advis- 
ing " Colonel Gardner, (commanders-in-chief do not " ad- 
vise " their men, but " order " them,) to " carry some 
entrenching tools " — " advice " which the Colonel, who was 
more disposed to fight than to dig trenches, very speedily 
disregarded, by ordering his command to Colonel Pres- 
cott's assistance, and by laying his own life on the altar 
of his country, when the enemy advanced, a third time, 
against the works. 

Again, in this division of my subject, let me inquire : 
V. Where was General Putnam, and now vv^^s he em- 
ployed, WHILE the enemy WAS MAKING HIS LAST ATTACK ON 

the LINES ? In this also, as in the last section, the friends of 
Putnam make no claim in his behalf ; but in this, as in 
that, there is ample testimony, among their own witnesses, 
from which an answer to my question may be gathered 
without their assistance. Jesse Smith swears : " Was at 
the rail-fence ; fired sixteen rounds ; went off to get his 
musket fixed. Going up Bunker's Hill, saw Colonel Gard- 
ner wounded, and General Putnam on his horse, urging 
the men there doion to tlie line of battle ; returning to the 
line, the retreat began." [Deposition of Jesse Smith.) R ev. 



150 Dawson's third letter. 

Daniel Chaplin, D.D.,of Groton, and Rev. JohnBullard, 
of Pepperell, swear that they " were intimate with Colonel 
Prescott ; that he told us repeatedly that when the re- 
treat was ordered and commenced, and he was descending 
the hill, he met General Putnam, and said to him, ' Why 
did not you support me, General, with your men, as 1 had 
reason to expect, according to agreement ? ' Putnam 
answered, ' I could not drive the dogs.' Prescott point- 
edly said to him, ' If you could not drive them up, you 
might have led them up.' " {Depositions of Bev. Daniel Chap- 
lin, D.D., and Rev. John Bullard.) It will be seen that 
Putnam had been on Bunher^s Hill during the action, and 
was then approaching Breed's Hill ; and as Colonel Pres- 
cott had been the last to leave the redoubt, it will be 
obvious that the retreat was ordered before Putnam left 
his favorite post on Bunker's Hill. Robert B. Wilkins 
swears that "just before the retreat from the fort, I passed 
on to Bunker Hill, where I found Putnam and Gerrish 
again." {Deposition of Robert B. Wilkins, of Concord.) 
Captain Trevett, of the artillery, swears : " Arrived at the 
rail-fence when the retreat commenced ; descending north- 
west side 0^ Bunher Hill, saw General Putnam in the same 
place, putting his tent on his horse." {Deposition of Cap- 
tain S. R. Trevett.) Other affidavits, were they necessary, 
might be cited to show that Putnam was on Bunker^s Hill 
during this last attack ; and that, when the retreat began, 
he was still on that position. 

VI. What was Putnam's position during the retreat ? 

Colonel SwETT, (page 47) speaking of the troops behind the 

rail-fence, says : " Putnam covered their retreat with 

his Connecticut troops and others just arrived, and, in 

t!i3 rear of the whole, dared the utmost fury of the 



Dawson's third letter. 151 

enemy, who pursued with little ardor, but poured in 
their thundering volleys, and showers of balls fell like 
hail around the General, He addressed himself to 
every passion of the troops, to persuade them to rally, 
to throw up his works on Bunker's Hill, and make a 
stand there, and threatened them with the eternal disgrace 
of deserting their General. He took his stand near 
a field-piece, and seemed resolved to brave the foe alone. 
His troops, however, felt it impossible to withstand the 
overwhelming force of the British bayonets; they left him. 
One sergeant only dared to stand by his General to the 
last ; he was shot down, and the enemy's bayonets were 
just upon the General, when he retired." 

Such is fancy let loose. The facts are these : " When 
the troops (from the fence) arrived at the summit of Bunk- 
er's Hill, we found General Putnam, with nearly as many 
men as had been ensaored in the battle; notwithstanding 
which, no measures had been taken for reinforcing us, nor 
was there a shot fired to cover our retreat, or any move- 
ment made to check the advance of the enemy to this 
height ; but, on the contrary. General Putnam rode off 
with a number of spades and pickaxes in his hands," &c. 
{Narrative of General Henry Dearborn.) Simeon Notes 
testifies that " when we were retreating, he rode up to us 
with his tent and tent-poles on his horse, and asked why 
we were retreating? He said we had been wishing to 
have the enemy come out, and now we had retreated, and 
had left the tools to fortify with ; that we ought to be 
ashamed of such conduct. But our officers thought he was 
too fiery, and refused to go back as he wished." (Deposi- 
lion of Simeon Noyes.) As these troops " had left the 
tools " which Putnam had taken up to the summit of 



152 Dawson's third letter. 

Bunker's Hill, it is evident they had reached the north-wcs 
slope of that Hill, at least, when tliey saw Putnam, and 
held this conversation with him.* They had passed over 
the Hill in their retreat, and " left the tools," which he 
also had left in his hurry to remove his tent and tent-poles, 
and, like General Dearborn, they saw " no movement 
made to check the advance of the enemy," nor even " a 
shot fired to cover their retreat." The only tent and tent- 
poles which the record of those times show to have been 
on the peninsula, on the 17th June, were Putnam's ; 
and when he found that circumstances would not permit 
him to seek shelter from the rays of the sun, under tlie 
folds of that tent, while he hurried up the idlers of his 
command, he packed it up, and removed it to a place of 
safety. Colonel Wade also testifies : " On the retreat, I 
saw Putnam on Bunker's Hill ; there were entrenching 
tools there, and he tried to stop our troops to throw up 
works there." {Deposition of Colonel Wade.) Here also 
is a full confirmation of the statements of Dearborn and 
NoYES ; the same denial of Putnam's activity in covering 
the retreat ; the same ignorance of the proximity of those 
terrible British bayonets to the General's breast ; the same 
positive denial that he was on the field of battle. But 
this is not all : Captain Francis Green testifies, in like 
manner : " On our retreat, saw Putnam on Bunker's Hill; 
he was in danger from the balls flying there ; he tried to 
stop us, and to make us take up entrenching tools, as I 
understood him, to throw up a breastwork there." And 
finally, as if to scatter " Selah's " pretensions beyond the 

* It will be seen that this was the identical spot on which he was when Captain Tre- 
vett, of the artillery, saw him, after the retreat had commenced. — Vide Capt. S. B. 
Trevetl's Deposition, page 150. 



Dawson's thied letter, 153 

possibility of a doubt, Judge Grosyenor, with the full ap- 
proval of PdTxN^am's son, says : " They (the enemy) made a 
direct advance on the redoubt, and, being successful, which 
our brave Captain Knowlton perceiving, ordered a retreat 
of his men, in which he was sustained by two companies 
under the command of Captains Clark and Chester," 
{Judge Grosvenor to Colonel Daniel Putnam, April 30, 1818, 
and published by the latter in his reply to General Dear- 
born.) There are several other depositions to the same 
effect, of which copies can be given, should " Selah'^ or " the 
people of Connecticut " desire them. I imagine, however, 
that the character of the gentlemen already cited, and that 
of their testimony, will render this unnecessary. 

In my last letter I referred your readers to every con- 
temporary authority — not merely hearsay witnesses— in- 
cluding all who knew of that which they wrote, to dis- 
prove " Selah's " fictions ; and I need not occupy your col- 
umns, at the present time, by citing more than the names 
and dates of their testimony: — The Provincial Congress of 
Massachusetts, by whose orders the peninsula was occupied, 
June 20 and June 28, 1775 ; the Committee of Safety of 
Massachusetts, July 25, 1775 ; Captain Elijah Hide, of 
Lebanon, Conn., who witnessed the action, 1775 ; Governor 
Jonathan Trumbull, of Connecticut, Putnam's superior, 
August 31, 1779 ; General Folsom, commander of the 
New Hampshire troops, June 22, 1775 ; Isaac Lothrop, in 
the Army, June 22, 1775 ; Governor John Brooks, who 
was on the hill, 1775 ; General John Stark, the hero of 
Bennington, June 22, 1775 ;* Captain John Chester, of 

* While the " galley-proofs " of this page were before me, for correction, I received 
from my valued friend, Caleb Stake, Esq. — grandson of the hero of the rail-fence at 
Bunker's Hill, and of Bennington— a mass of most interesting manuscripts, relating, 

20, 



154 Dawson's third letter. 

Connecticut, with Knowlton behind the rail-fence, July 
22, 1775 ; Peter Brown, in the redoubt with Prescott 
June 25, 1775 ; Samuel Gray, also in the battle, July 12, 
1775 ; Colonel William Prescott, " the hero of Bunker 
Hill," Aug. 25, 1775; Chief-Justice Marshall, 1804; 
Major- General Henry Lee, of the Revolutionary army ; 
Mrs. Mercy Warren, a sister of James Otis and the 
wife of James Warren ; Colonel James Reed, who fought 
behind the rail-fence, 1776 ; General Heath, the first and 
the last General on duty in the Revolutionary army, 
1798 ; Rev. John Martin, who fought on the hill, and 
whose testimony has been mutilated by Colonel Swett, 
1775 ; Hon. John Pitts, July 20, 1775; Dr. James Thacher, 
of the Revolutionary army ; Hon. William Tudor, who 
tried Colonel Gerrish, and some others who had faltered 
in the action ; and Rev. Dr. Gordon, the historian, then at 
Roxbury — while Lieutenant Clarke, of the British Marines, 
who fought in the action, also bears testimony to the in- 
correctness of " Selah's " statements.* 

Finally, ^' Selah^' appeals to the good opinions which 
General Washington and General Joseph Reed expressed 
toward General Putnam, to disprove my remarks on this 
general subject, and to ward off that terrible blow which 
my reference to the correspondence between General 

in part, to the peculiar " services -^ of Putnam, in the French War, under Colonel 
RoGEKS, as well as to those which he did not perform on Breed's Hill. I regret that i, 
they did not come at an earlier date; but, with others, even more interesting than these, 
relating to his sympathy with the Royal cause, they have been carefully preserved for 
future use. 

* I am indebted to the Rev. Dr. Chapin, of New York, for the use of Lieut. Clarke's 
"Narrative of the Battle,'" &c., (London, 1775,) on the 19th page of which, after 
speaking of Dr. Warren, he says : " He was supposed to be the Commander of the 
American army that day ; for General Putnam was about three miles distant, and 
formed an ambuscade with about three thousand men." 



DAWSOX'S THIRD LETTER. 155 

Washington and Robert R. Livingston inflicted on the 
character of General Putnam.* It affords me pleasure to 
meet my friend " Selali " on a platform such as this which 
he has constructed ; and I beg his attention while I turn 

* Since the|pubIication of these letters, I have been favored with the following copies 
of other portions of this correspondence, collated with the originals, which I have con- 
sidered worthy a place in these pages: 

Extract of a letter from Robt. R. Livingston to Gen. Washington. 

" Manor of Livingston, 12th January, 1778. 

" Your Excellency is fully impressed with the importance of fortifying Hudson's 
River. The want of men and money must make this work go on very slowly, or, indeed, 
by leaving all unfinished, waste what shall be expended. 

" Your Excellency is not ignorant of the extent of General Putnam's capacity and 
diligence ; and how well soever these may qualify him for the management of this work 
and the command of this most important post, the unfavorable sentiments entertained of 
him by the people of this and the neighboring State will destroy his utility. Of the 
disaffection loith lohich the populace brand him— /)-om the intercourse which 
he suffers to be kept up with the enemy— from the unbounded lenity with which he 
trusts the disaffected — the more thinking among us readily acquit him. But I am sorry 
to say, there are very few that do not charge the loss of Fort Montgomery to his negli- 
gence, as well as the subsequent ravages of the country on the east side of the river, 
which it is supposed might have been protected from an enemy who moved slowly and 
acted with the utmost timidity, nor ever ventured on shore but when they were sure of 
meeting with little or no opposition. But, sir, I will not anticipate what a future 
enquiry cannot fail to discover. Having the highest respect for General Putnam's 
bravery and former activity, I sincerely lament that his love for his country will not 
permit him to take that repose to which his advanced age and former services justly 
entitle him. My object in this is to hint to your Excellency the necessity of putting this 
department under the command of an active and judicious officer, of pressing Con- 
gress to furnish it with money, without which it is utterly impossible to carry on any 
public works with spirit, and of recommending the allowance of additional pay to 
soldiers employed in erecting defences on the river, as some compensation for their labor 
and the wear of their clothing — and to induce them to work with spirit. 

" A chain and cannon will be wanting: sixteen or eighteen twelve-pounders may be 
got at Salisbury; in mounting these and procuring others, no time is to be lost in setting 
the forges at work. There are other subjects on which I could wish to address your 
Excellency, of no less importance to the cause of America; but this, and my fear of 
trespassing upon your time, induces me to defer till some future opportunity; in the 
meanwhile, I flatter myself that your Excellency will not only excuse, but consider the 
freedom with which this is written, as a new proof of the confidence which I have ever 
found myself inclined to repose in your Excellency, and which you have, by your good- 
ness, so frequently encouraged, as to persuade me that I run no other hazard in speak- 
ing with equal freedom of men and measures, than that of sometimes trying your 
patience. We have various accounts from New York, of their being in continual 



156 Dawson's third letter. 

over the records, and show " the people of Connecticut " 
who it is I am " assailing," and what manner of man it is 
of whom " Selah " and his squire are the self-constituted 
defenders. , 

alarm, least they should receive an unwelcome visit from us during the winter. I sup- 
pose their apprehensions will be somewhat allayed by the arrival of the Seventy-first 
and three Hessian regiments, which have lately got in from the Delaware. 

" I have the honor to be, with the greatest respect and esteem, &c., 

"Robert R. Livingston." 



Extract of a letter from Robt. R. Livingston to Gouv. Morris. 

" Rhinebeck, 29th January, 1778. 
" Dear Morris:— The fortifications of the river, for which no one step is yet taken of 
any importance. Congress have passed resolutions, they have entrusted the execution 
of them to General Gates, and in the same breath they have recalled him. Upon 
what principles do they act ? Do they mean to show the world that they know the import- 
ance of that river, and at the same time that they are indifferent about its security ? 
Or do they memi that a loork of such magnitude should be left to a man whose 
VERY fidelity IS SUSPECTED, tvhosc ignovance is notorious, and whose negligence 
has already endangered this Slate. Because he is unfit to command a division of the 
grand army, is he therefore qualified for a separate command here ? If I thought you 
ignorant of his character, I would describe it more particularly, having had it in my power 
to make many observations on it. But you know it, Duer knows it, and Congress and 
General Washington are both well satisfied of his incapacity— and yet he commands ; 
through indolence or false delicacy, the safety of one of the United States, and not the 
least important of them, is cruelly to be sacrificed. For Heaven's sake, rouse from your 
lethargy— change the command — take some steps for our security; before this reaches 
you, we shall be far advanced in February, and no step of any importance taken for 
our defence. If nothing is done, our State will be depopulated — the inhabitants within 
many miles of the river are already seeking more quiet dwellings. The lands will 
remain unsown, least the enemy should reap. I am fearful that all your exiDcdition, 
should you exert yourself immediately upon the receipt of this, will still be too slow — 
but leave nothing unattempted. Let us, whatever happens, have the consolation of 
reflecting that we have neglected nothing that our love for our country suggested — 
and let the rectitude of our intentions give the lie to the artful or insidious attempts of 
our enemies." * * * * 



Extract op a letter from Robt. R. Livingston to Gen. Washington, in 
REPLY to his letter OF March 12, 1778. 

"April 12, 1778. 
" The object of the inquiry into the loss of the forts, are not so extensive as iJie 
public censures; they comprehend that of the ships, and the subsequent destruction 
of the country, which was most shamefully abandoned. I believe, however, that the 
articles as they stand will be svifflcient to discover, at the least, the incapacity of Gen- 
eral PcTNAM, which, though it may hurt our delicacy, I conceive a sufficient ground 
for the removal of any officer, upon whose abilities the lives of men and the freedom 



Dawson's thied letter. 15T 

I. The accomplished Captain Graydon (Memoirs, edit. 
Phila., 1846, page 179,) says : "Thinking so highly as I 
now do of the gentlemen of this country, (New England,) 
the recollection is painful, but the fact must not be dissem- 
bled : even the celebrated General Putnam, riding with a 
hanger belted across his brawny shoulders, over a waist- 
coat without sleeves, (his summer costume,) was deemed 
much fitter to head a band of sicklemen or ditchers, than 
musketeers. He might be brave, and had, certainly, an 
honest manliness about him ; but it was thought, and per- 
haps with reason, that he was not what the times required." 

II. In the well-known "Political Alphalet,'' of those 

times, the original manuscript of which is in the New York 

Historical Society's Library, I find, opposite the letter 0, 

these lines, 

" — stands for cypher, and so let it be, 
Grandmother Putnam, an emblem of thee "^ 

III. What the plain-spoken, honest and brave old Gov- 
ernor GeorCxE Clinton's opinion of Putnam was, can be 

of the country may rest. In a republican government, no room is left for those preju- 
dices and partialities which prevail in monarchies. There the honor of individuals is 
so interwoven in the constitution, as to become a part of it, and a support of the throue, 
which, in the ojiinion of the rulers, precedes the happiness of the people. Virtue is the 
basis of a republic ; and that confines every man to the station in which he is most 
capable of rendering services to the community. Thus Pptnam should, were he ten 
years younger, have my most hearty vote for a company of Grenadiers. Not having 
shaken oQ", with the old government, the prejudices we imbibed under it, we continue in 
military commands many peace officers and doioager generals, who bring the army 
into contempt, and render the most promising schemes abortive. If they must still 
continue in the military line, I would propose that they be sent to the Board of War, 
since it appears, from a late expedition, that some who are most inactive in the field, 
are most bold in the cabinet, and that those who let the season of action slip, are great 
in the projection of unseasonable expeditions. I am very happy in the new arrange- 
ments at Peekskill, and think we have, under the command of General McDougal, a 
fine prospect of defending this most important post." 

* In singular harmony with this sentiment was the opinion of Goitverneur Morris, in 
a letter to General Schiller, written soon after the loss of Ports Montgomery and 
Clinton: " Old Putnam is an old woman," he says, " and, therefore, much cannot be 
expected from him.'— ilistory of the Republic, by John C Hamilton, 1, p. 323. 



158 Dawson's third letter. 

gathered from the following letter ; and I believe that no 
honest man, at the present day, will dissent from his views, 
when the facts to which it refers shall have been brought 
to his notice : 

" PouGHKEEPSiE, 28tli December, 1777. 
" Dear Sir : — I was favored with the receipt of your letter of the 
22d inst., some days since, and returned a short answer to it by the 
express who brought it ; but as I have reason to beHeve you had left 
Peekskill before he got there, I conchide my letter has not been re- 
ceived. I have not a doubt but that there have been such unjust and 
dishonorable practices committed on the inhabitants as you mention, 
nor have I reason to believe they were without the knowledge of the 
commanding officer of the Department. Complaints have been exhib- 
ited to him of cattle, the property of the inhabitants of this State, living 
near Colonel Robinson's, being drove off by parties of the Continental 
troops, and sold at vendue in NewEngland, without any account being 
rendered to the proprietors ; and, if I am rightly informed, an officer, 
with a party, took sundry articles from Robinson's, sent them off and 
sold them, in like manner, in Connecticut, and has not accounted with 
the States for the j^roceeds. Of this I informed Gen. Putnam, and de- 
sired that an inquiry might be made into the conduct of the officer 
commanding the Tp^rty, to which I was more particularly induced, as I 
found he had given an order on the Quarter-Master-General for the pay- 
ment of the teams employed in carrying off those effects ; but I have 
reason to believe he has had no regard to my request. Of this I am 
fully convinced, that the soldiery claim as lawful prize every thing 
they take within the enemy's lines, though the property of our best 
friends, and whatever is taken beyond our advanced posts, by a gen- 
erous construction, comes within the above predicament. On this 
principle, the several articles taken at or near Robinson's were sold, 
because the enemy's shipping were then in the river near that place ; 
and, on the same principle, indiscriminate plunder might have taken 
place on both sides of the river, as high up as the manor of Livingston. 
Little good can be expected of an army whose interest it is to suffer 
a country to be abandoned to the enemy, thereby to justify plundering 
the inhabitants. Perhaps, and I don't know that it would be unchari- 



Dawson's third letter. 159 

table to suppose, that it is this trade that makes some people so very 
fond of little expeditious. 

" I have long thoiight to ascertain these facts, and seek redress, not 
only for the parties immediately injured, but the public ; but mj^ time 
has been so fully employed of late aboutother matters, that I have been 

obliged to neglect it. 

*** **■»** 

" Your most obedient servant, 

" Geo. Clinton. 
" Lieut. Col. Alexander Hamilton." 

When it is borne in mind that General Putnam, at the 
period in question, was " the commanding- officer of the 
Department ;" that, as such, his proportion of every " lauful 
prize " was much larger than that which his subordinates 
received ; that his head-quarters were at Robinson's ; that 
it is said, the remains of his wife have found a resting- 
place in the vault of that famil}' ; and that it was Ids great 
fondness for " little expeditions " which caused so much 
trouble, the crushing force of this letter will be duly appre- 
ciated, and Israel Putnam's integrity receive its appropri- 
ate respect. 

IV. It will be recollected that in October, 1777, General 
Washington dispatched his aide-de-camp, Lieutenant-Colo- 
nel Hamilton, to General Gates, to procure reinforcements 
from the Northern army ; that, on his way up the Hudson, 
Hamilton directed General Putnam to send three brigades 
from his command for the same purpose ; and that this 
order was disregarded. On his return from Albany, Ham- 
ilton stopped at New Windsor a second time, when he 
wrote to General Washington in these very emphatic 
words: " I am pained beyond expression to inform your 
Excellency that on my arrival here, I find every thing has 
been neglected and deranged by General Putnam, and that 
the two brigades. Poor's and Learned's, still remain here 



160 Dawson's thied letter. 

and on the other side of the river, at Fishkill. Colonel 
Warner's militia, I am told, have been drawn to Peeks- 
kill, to aid in an expedition against New York, which it 
seems is, at this time, the hobby-horse with General Put- 
nam. Not the least attention has been paid to my order, 
in your name, for a detachment of one thousand men from 
the troops hitherto stationed at this post. Every thing is 
sacrificed to the whim of taking New York."* * * * 
" I wish General Putnam was recalled from the command 
of this post, and Governor Clinton would accept it — the 
blunders and caprices of the former are endless. Believe 
me, sir, nobody can be more impressed with the importance 
of forwarding the reinforcements coming to you with all 
speed, nor could any body have endeavored to promote it 
more than I have done ; but the ignorance of some, and the 
design of others, have been almost insuperable obstacles." 
{Hamilton's Letter to General Washington, Nov. 10th, 1777.) 
Again, two days later, he writes, " I must do him (General 
Poor) the justice to say he appears solicitous to join you, 
and that I believe the past delay is not owing to any fault 
of his, but is wholly chargeable on General Putnam. In- 
deed, sir, I owe it to the service to say, that every part of 
tJiis gentleman's conduct is marked with blunder and negli- 
gence, and gives general disgust." (Lieut-Col. Hamilton's 
Letter to Gen. Washington, Nov. 12, 1777.) To these letters 
General Washington gave this answer {Letter to Lieut- 
Col. Hamilton, Nov. 15, 1777) : " I approve entirely of all 
the steps you have taken, and have only to wish that the 
exertions of those you have had to deal with, had kept 
pace with your zeal and good intentions."! 

* The force of Gov. George Clinton's remark on " Utile expeditions " {vide p. 159) 
will be seeu from this paragraph 

f The curious will find interesting matter connected with this subject in " The His- 
tory of the Eepublic," by John C. Hamilton, vol. 1, pp. 358-361. 



Dawson's third letter. 161 

By a reference to Robert R. Livingston's letter to Gen- 
eral Washington, wliicli I cited in my last letter, and a com- 
parison with this, it will be seen that, in their allusion to 
the sentiments of the people, and of the army then posted in 
the Highlands, there is a wonderful agreement in their lan- 
guage, respecting the popular opinion concerning Putnam's 
character and ability. 

V. " SelaJi " refers with great satisfaction to a compli- 
mentary letter which General Joseph Reed wrote to Put- 
nam ; and from that he proves, to his own satisfaction, that 
Putnam must have enjoyed the confidence and respect of the 
former officer. I have before me a pamphlet, written by 
General Reed, entitled ''Remarks on a late jjuhlication in the 
Independent Gazette ; ivitli a short address to the People of 
Pennsylvania on the many libels and slanders luhich have 
lately appeared against the aidhor, Phila., 1783," in which the 
matter is fully discussed. These are his words : " At this 
juncture the plan of attack on the Hessians at Trenton was 
completed, and preparations made for carrying it into 
eifect, on the morning of the 26th of December, when it was 
supposed that the festivities of the preceding day would 
make surprise more easy, and conquest more certain. As 
soon as it was fully determined. General Washington wrote 
me the letter of the 23d of December, which will certainly 
convey, to every unprejudiced mind, a clear idea of the 
unbounded confidence reposed in my fidelity at so critical 
a period, when the fate of America hung in most critical 
and awful suspense. The letter, of course, I communicated 
to General Cadwallader ; and, as Colonel Griffen had 
retired, and General Washington expressed such earnest 
desires that a diversion should be made for Count Donop, 
we concluded to engage General Putnam, then in Philadel- 

21 



162 Dawson's third letter. 

phia, to attempt it, by crossing at Cooper's Ferry, with the 
troops then daily coming in. A difi&culty then presented — 
how we should make the communication to General Put- 
nam, without entrusting this important secret farther than 
prudence and the General's strong injunctions would war- 
rant. After various suggestions, General Cadwallader, 
with some apologies, proposed that I should go and enforce 
it with personal influence. I accordingly set out in the 
evening, and reached Philadelphia at midnight ; upon con- 
ference with General Putnam, he represented the state of 
the militia, the general confusion which prevailed, his ap- 
prehensions of an insurrection in the city in his absence, 
and many other circumstances, as convinced me no assist- 
ance could be derived from him." 

"When it is borne in mind, that in these, the very dark- 
est days of the Revolutionary war, when every nerve was 
strained, and every possible resource called into requisition 
to facilitate the movements and insure the success of the 
commander-in-chief, in his proposed assault on Colonel Rahl, 
at Trenton, it was not considered '' prudent, ^^ or warranted 
by " the General's strong injunctions," to '* entrust this im- 
portant secret " to General Putnam, (even when the effect 
of that want of confidence would be the loss of General 
Putnam's cooperation, with that of the garrison of Phila- 
delphia, and of " the troops then daily coming in,") it will 
be seen, more distinctly than from any words of mine, 
what were the peculiar opinions, respecting General Put- 
nam's character and fidelity to his country, which Gen- 
erals John Cadwallader, Joseph Reed, and George 
Washington, entertained in December, 1776 ; and if "/S'e- 
lah " and his faithful squire are content with them, neither 
I nor " the mass of the people of Connecticut " have any 
cause of complaint. 



Dawson's third letter. 163 

YI. My zealous opponents, hard pushed for material, 
have also pressed into their service a letter of the illustri- 
ous Washington, written after the cessation of hostilities, 
when his half-pay was the subject of anxiety in Gen. Put- 
nam's mind. It would have been more candid, I think, if 
the letter of the Commander-in-chief to the President of 
Congress, respecting the discontent in the army on the 
occasion of Putnam's appointment to the office of Major- 
General, had been cited. It is dated at " Cambridge, July 
4th, 1775," and can be seen, at length, in Dr, Sparks^ Writ- 
ings of Washington, III., pp. 22, 23. There is a letter from 
General Washington, dated " Valley Forge, March 6, 1778," 
which, also, " Selah " could have studied profitably. One 
clause of that letter, referring to the Rhode Island expedi- 
tion, reads thus : " They also know, with more certainty 
than I do, what will be the determination of Congress re- 
specting General Putnam, and, of course, whether the 
appointment of him to such a command as that at Rhode 
Island, would fall within their views : it being incumbent 
on me to observe, that with such materials as I am fur- 
nished, the work must go on — whether well or ill is another 
matter. If, therefore, he and others are not laid aside, 
they must be placed where they can least injure the ser- 
vice." There is information, also, on this subject, in that 
powerfully-written letter of General Washington to Pres- 
ident John Jay, dated "Head-quarters, Middlebrook, 
April 14, 1779," in which, after discussing the machinations 
of General Gates, he says, " The plan of operations for the 
campaign being determined, a commanding officer was to 
be appointed for the Indian expedition. This command, 
according to all present appearances, will probably be of 
the second, if not the first importance for the campaign. 



164 Dawson's third letter. 

The officer conducting it has a flattering prospect of acquir- 
ing more credit, than can be expected by any other, this 
year ; and he has the best reason to hope for success. 
General Lee, from his situation, was out of the question ; 
General Schuyler (who, by the way, would have been most 
agreeable to me,) was so uncertain of continuing in the 
army, that I could not appoint him ; General Putnam I 
need not mention. I, therefore, made the offer of it, for 
the appointment could not longer be delayed, to General 
Gates," &c. Probably General Washington, like some 
persons at the present day, had never seen the evidence of 
Putnam's exploits among the Indians, which " SelaJi " and 
his squire have spoken of ; and it is really a great pity that 
the Humphreys, the Swetts, the Cutters, the Demings, 
and the "Selalis " of more modern times, had not then exist- 
ed to enlighten the Virginia gentleman who was then at 
the head of the army, concerning the wonderful abilities, 
as a scout and woodsman, which General Putnam possessed. 
Had the General supposed that General Putnam was wor- 
thy of his notice, he would at least have "mentioned him," 
in connection with the command ; or, had he supposed that 
he possessed any merit as a " scout " — of which the living 
witnesses were in his camp — he would have honored him 
with the command, especially since General Sullivan was 
vested with it, from necessity. The truth is, General 
Washington was, himself, a " woodsman," and knew what 
was the exact extent of Putnam's qualifications for the 
command. He knew that making gardens, and mending 
roads, and cutting firewood had been the chief employments 
of the hero of the fox's hole, during the preceding war with 
France ; and now, when active service, good judgment, un- 
doubted bravery, and the finest military abilities were 



Dawson's third letter. 165 

required, he knew, also, that Putnam was not qualified 
for the post, and he did "not mention" him. The corres- 
pondence between Robert R. Livingston and General 
Washington, early in 1778, from which extracts were given 
in my last, will have conveyed to " SelaJiJ^ by this time, 
probably, what was General Washington's opinion of 
Putnam at that time ; while his answer to Lieutenant 
Colonel Hamilton's letter {Letter to Hamilton, Nov. 15, 
1777,) will show what his opinion of "Selah^s " hero was at 
the close of the preceding year. 

Were such authorities necessary for my purpose, I could 
add many others to those which I have already cited, from 
officers of the American army ; and we are not entirely 
without evidence that the British officers entertained simi- 
lar views. Indeed, it is well known that the correspond- 
ence of General Robertson and Major Andre, which led 
to the open desertion of one party and the death of an- 
other, was not confined exclusively to Benedict Arnold.* 
The enemy, by long continued correspondence, such as 
Robert R. Livingston protested against in January, 1778, 
had become as well acquainted with Putnam's failings as 
with Arnold's poverty ;t and when a deed of darker hue 
than usual was projected, the cupidity of the one and the 
necessities of the other were the instrumentalities whose 

* The evidence is before me, which clearly proves the complicity of Gen. Putnam, 
with Arnold, iu the West Point Treason, for which Major Andke was hung and Gen. 
Arnold became an exile and an outlaw. 

t Gen. Gage, the Royal Governor of Massachusetts, in the earlier days of the Revo- 
lution, was made acquainted, directly, with Putnam's failings; and was, afterwards, 
censured for not profiting from that knowledge. At a subsequent date, a letter from 
New York, published in " The Middlesex Journal," a London paper, on the twenty- 
first of December, 1776, says: "He (Putnam) never xms a favorer of American 
Independency;'' and the "old friend of General Putnam's," who wrote this letter, 
although be was then in New Forfc, was, doubtless, well informed concerning his views. 



166 Dawson's third letter. 

co-operation, within the American lines, were sought by 
Andre and his superiors. It may serve to amuse " Selali " 
and his man Friday, at some future time, however; and I 
will close the record, temporarily, without troubling your 
readers on this subject at the present time.* 

The question respecting the commandant on Breed's Hill, 
Mr. Editor, is by no means a new one ; and "Selah " is not 
the first of Putnam's friends who has mooted it. Early in 
the day, on the 17th of June, 1775, a friend of Putnam — 
one Thomas G-age, a Major-General in the King's service 
— inquired from a royalist who stood at his side, in the 
town of Boston, " Who is the person who appears to com- 
mand ?"i- and from that day to the present — from General 
Gage to " Selah " — the same question has been asked, and 
as often answered. Councillor Willard, recognizing, in 
Colonel Prescott, his own brother-in-law, answered Gage ; 
Mr. Frothingham has responded to Colonel Swett ; and 
upon me, in the midst of the pressing cares of business, has 
devolved the duty of making the last answer, to your cor- 
respondent ^^Selahy 

With my sincere thanks to yourself, and to your readers, 
for the patience with which you and they have endured 
this prolonged discussion, I remain, as ever. 

Sincerely yours, 

Henry B. Dawson. 

p. s. — Juhj 29th. Since the date of this letter, I have 
been favored, by my courteous opponent, with copies of 
three efforts, auxiliary to his own, which have found their 

* My friend, " ISelah," having failed to raise the curtain, the discussion of this topic 
must, necessarily, rest until another opportunity shall have been offered. 
t Vide Fkothdigham's Siege of Boston, p. 126. 



Dawson's third letter. 167 

way into the press of Hartford— a poem, by Mrs. Sigour- 
NEY ; a series of resolutions, denunciatory of me, and lauda- 
tory of Putnam and ''Selah,'' by the "Putnam Phalanx," of 
Hartford ; and a series of resolutions, similar to the last, 
by the Legislature of Connecticut. If I may be allowed 
to judge, from these signs, I might suppose that Connecticut 
is becoming somewhat excited. It is from just such agi- 
tations as this, however, that the truth is developed ; and 
while my opponents continue to stir up the matter, falsehood 
will lose ground. 

The poem is all which any one can make on such an 
empty subject ; and if it is but " sounding brass," the fault 
is in the subject, not in Mrs. Sigourney. 

The " Phalanx," like good neighbors, have held up the 
weary hands of their young townsman, and, by their sym- 
pathy, have cheered the heart of their associate.* They 
have done well ; and they, too, should engross their pro- 

* The following is a copy of the preamble and resolutions referred to, taken from 
" The Hartford Daihj Post," of Saturday, May 14, 1859: 

" PUTNAM PHALANX. 



" At a regular meeting of the PUTNAM PHALANX, holden at their Armory, last 
evening, the following resolutions were offered by Mr. E. B. Stkong, Quarter-master of 
the battalion, which were unanimously adopted, and ordered to be published in each of 
the daily papers. 

" Whe7-eas, Certain correspondence having recently taken place in " The Hartford 
Daily Post," between Henry B. Dawson and " Selah," affecting the fair fame and 
military reputation of one whose memory we fondly cherish; therefore, 

" Resolved, That the hearty thanks of the PUTNAM PHALANX, of Hartford, 
Conn., are hereby tendered to our fellow-citizen and soldier, " Selah," (A. Clifford 
Griswold, Esq.,) for the able and unanswerable vindication he has made, through the 
" Daily Post," of the immortal name that adorns their military association. 

" Resolved, That the unpatriotic and prejudiced author of the " Bailies of the 
United Stales by Sea and Land," (Henry B. Dawson,) deserves no welcome con- 
sideration from the hands of that free people to whose welfare Major-General Israel 
Putnam devoted his courage, his ardor, and his inflexible love of liberty ! 

(Attest) " J. M. Sexton, Secy." 



168 Dawson's third letter. 

ceedings, on this subject, either in the ancient " town 
records" of Pomfret, where "Selah'^ says the record of 
Putnam's birth in Connecticut can be seen;* or, what is 
better, probably, in the archives of " The Historical Society 
of Connecticut. "t 

The General Assembly of Connecticut has also decreed 
that that State has furnished " not only the hero, but the 
commander " at Bunker's Hill. J: Why did not that sage 

* Vide " SelaWs " first letter. 

■f Vide the Resolutions of the Legislature of Connecticut, referred to in the next 
note. 

I It appears from marked papers which were sent to me, that the Hon. Henrt C. 
Deming, a member of the House, had delivered a " Lecture " on " The Life and Ser- 
vices of 3Iaj or- General Israel Putnam," before the members of the Legislature of 
Connecticut; and, soon afterwards, the two Houses of that body passed i-esolutions 
approving the sentiments which the lecturer had expressed, passing judgment on the 
manner in which he had handled his subject, and determining the questions which were 
involved in the then pending discussion between" Selah " and his opponent. The follow- 
ing abstract of the proceedings, taken from the Legislative reports in " The Hartford 
Daily Fost" of June 17, 1859— a reminiscence of Bunker's Hill— will convey to the 
reader the spirit of the House, as well as the sentiments of the lecturer. 

"CONNECTICUT LEGISLATURE. 

" SENATE. 

" Thursday, June 16. 
******** 
" Resolution of thanks to Hon. Henry C. Deming for his address on the Life and 
Services of General Putnam. Passed unanimously." 



" Tuursday, June 16. 
******* 

" Mr. Brandagee offered the following resolutions: 

" Resolved, That the unanimous thanks of this Assembly are due, and are hereby 
tendered to the Hon. Henry' C. Deming, of Hartford, for his very eloquent lecture, 
delivered, at the request of the two Houses, on the Life and Services of General Israel 
Putnam; and especially for his masterly and conclusive vindication of the claim of 
Connecticut to have furnished to the cause of Liberty on Bunker's Hill, not only the 
hero, but the Commandant. 

" Resolved, That the clerks of the respective Houses be instructed to procure copies 
of this resolve, to be appropriately executed upon pai-chmeut, at the expense of the 
State, one of which shall be furnished to Mr. Deming, and the other deposited in the 
State Historical Society; and that this resolution be entered at length in the journals of 
the two houses respectively. 



Dawson's third letter. 169 

assembly, in its wisdom, also enact that Connecticut has 
also furnished the historian who has discovered it, and the 
Legislature which has given it the sanction of a legal 
enactment? The National Assembly of France enacted, 
in due form, the assertion that there is no God; the Assem- 
bly of Connecticut, emulous of Gallic reputation, has, with 
equal gravity, enacted that a Massachusetts man, named 
Putnam, was "not only the hero, but the commander on 
Bunker's Hill" — a question which is beyond the scope of 
the powers of that Body ; and one which is not, and will 
not be affected by all the resolutions which may be adopted 
concerning it, from this day to the end of time. 

H. B. D. 

Mr. Bkandagee said : Any gentleman who was in attendance upon the lecture 
referred to in the resolution, could speak on this subject as well as he could. But he 
never attended a lecture on any subject — scieutitic, philosophical or historical — in which 
he had been more completely interested, or in which the case was more ably handled, 
than in this instance. And he believed that Connecticut was interested to have a 
record of this proceeding upon the pages of the journals of the Legislature. 

Mr. Halsey remarked that the oration was a triumphant vindication of the cpims 
of General Putxam and of Connecticut, and the resolution expressed his opinion pre- 
cisely. He felt sure that all would give their commendation in favor of the Oratoi- and 
in commemoration of the Hero. 

The resolution passed neiyi. con. 
. Mr. Deming begged leave to trespass upon strict parliamentary rules so far as to 
express his thanks for the compliment contained in this resolution, and he offered his 
thanks to the gentleman who offered the resolution (Mr. Brandaoee) and the gentle- 
man who supported it (Mr. Hat.sey). It was time that there should be some vindica- 
tion of the fame of Putnam and the honor of Connecticut; Since the lecture last 
evening he had received renewed evidence of the truth of the claim that Gen. Putnam 
commanded at the battle of Bunker's Hill. He had met with men from Windham 
County who had received traditional evidence that in that liattle Putnam was the chief 
in command. And these persons did not know that this fact was doubted. Surely, 
they have not read the works of Bancroft, or Irving, or Fkothingham, or the re- 
ports in the papers of the meeting in Boston after the death of Prescott, when it was 
claimed that his father was the commander at that battle. And many did not know 
that Prescott's claim was doubted. But he had searched all the authorities, and could 
not entertain a doubt of the valid claim that Connecticut holds in this case. To the end 
of his life did Putnam claim this honor, and when almost in articulo mortis he be- 
queathed the claim to his son. To the extent that I have assisted in vindicating this 
claim I rejoice, and I will not say how flattered I feel as regards the action of the House. 
[Spontaneous and hearty applause.]"' 

22 



mm^^^k 



'nRr\::'.^A, 



m^A. 






•^■^■AaAa/^AA.AA 









:?^^^*^W 



aA^^A 



^^m^MMf^MtWl 



mM^iMMmj^lBMaM. 






m^im^'^''^7jy'^''r'v. 



^Ar./^A^^^C-xC' 






'^■^AaA 









WnOL,^i.AAAAA^^AAA«^,^^A?,r,, - 



'/^.^rV^yv/^A.A^,^ 



^/.>^/^r^/^A^A 



kAi'£i£iiia^synU^i 



^A,AAf-^^pA:;^0■^S^A'OC(^.Ao:?AA^^pA^ 

/f (' a/>AA' A 

;^'nO;f ^-^^/^A^/^AA^A/^AA^AAAA^AA^^^,^;..0|J|§,^^|,«,|^^ 



kU If UJJilinM 



r^"-...^.^ 



rjj«nAWAWATAMAM 












^^.^,/^^A.,^./^/^' 



rvAA^A^^^'S 



<3> C -^ - y^ ^ A 












nrii!!! MMif ffinr 



' ; " ' A '?' ^ /^ A' ^ S 12* ,» /?, ^3>- w I* A 



,1s«|=!««:«A 






'*f«1 









,^A^ AO,/^,h^^^.-^.^^.;^,..^ ,^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^ ^^ 



>/^PO'Ar\i 



A^A,rAA^^ft^^^/^^A^/^AAfl/Y*A^^;AA;;A/^^^;:AH;^;:?|pc:r--^^ 









:-:.'^l?|?ssc^««^^QPpOAAp;^A,^AA.AA,,A^.,;^-^^^;;^,,^AA.Anmn^^^^^^^ 



■;' J«' aiSaaa 









^^'^a..^n. A..JJJ.V-:,. 









^^mss, 



r ■ ■• ■ ^ • " =; ?i'Ay ■.^. 



'mtmmSiMiamijJiim^lala^ 



'AA^^AaA/ 



iJmimlij^^m'lAW^^aM 






'^^m.f^'r:'^^;^:; 



k^^'^mm^r^riAJYirify^f 






.:,... •^ ^'-^ ■^■:■■•"^'>p(^^W^AAWA''nAAAAl;,^ 

^/^«A.A«.?''^^-'^^^AAAAAAAAAA!A«-^^-«A-«r!fi8»?^. 



aM5o5«S#^ 






'^A^^^inA^i.w-^.r-y 






-^^'/^^^^^^^^^M^' 



^;iA^0A/3AA2 



^■,«,i?^<^^i 






jpKwrvf^^v*^-- 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



II III! Illllllll IIIIMII1 

011 801 045 



